Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Madam Speaker: Before I call the first hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that a great many hon. Members want to participate in the Adjournment debate—I ask all hon. Members to bear that in mind.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I believe that I am pushing at an open door on this matter, but I still think it worth putting on the record. In a recent article by Lucy Ward in The Guardian, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health spoke about the problem of chlamydia and the devastating effects that the disease can have on women's lives. More recently, my local branch of the British Medical Association raised the matter with me, asking whether the Government would introduce a screening programme.
Chlamydia is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United Kingdom, and nearly 40,000 cases are reported every year at clinics in England. Even more alarming is the fact that the disease is extremely prevalent among young women under the age of 25—the infection affects both sexes, of course, but the real damage is done to women.
The symptoms, when they are evident, manifest themselves as inflammation of the cervix. However, the problems are not usually evident—chlamydia is a silent infection, which does tremendous damage. If it is untreated, it can spread and damage the fallopian tubes, which can lead to infertility and, more seriously, to ectopic pregnancies—the fertilised egg lodges in the fallopian tube, which can be life-threatening after a few weeks.
My concern is not only that the condition is so easily treatable—a course of antibiotics over seven days could get rid of it—but that there is so much ignorance about it. Given the number of cases that are presented at clinics, no educational programme seems to have had any effect.
I ask the Government—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has said that she wants to do this—to ensure that women are screened, in a procedure similar to the one for cervical cancer, at family planning clinics and doctors' surgeries throughout the country. As the condition is preventable, advice should be readily available to women and the procedure should be accessible. The Government must accept that screening must be backed by extra funding, as the cost could not be borne by current budgets.
Professionals and politicians have become increasingly aware of the damage that chlamydia can do to women. The chief medical officer has convened a working party on the subject, which I believe is due to report in a few weeks. It is widely rumoured that it will recommend routine screening of those under 25, but I want screening to be offered to all women who may be at risk. That would be most welcome, even as a pilot scheme—evidence from schemes in America and Sweden shows that screening is effective.
I should also welcome a good education programme about chlamydia—it is important that young people in schools should have proper information. There would be cost benefits. Given the growing incidence of infertility and the high cost of in vitro fertilisation treatment—to say nothing of the complete misery that couples face when they find that they cannot produce children, and, usually, that they cannot receive IVF treatment on the national health service—if the number of cases of chlamydia were reduced, the benefits would be twofold. I am asking my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health to bring a report before the House very soon on their proposals for screening. When they do so, I think that they will receive the overwhelming support of the House.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: First, I wish to refer to the BBC's decision to take away the broadcasting of "Yesterday in Parliament". The BBC is unique in the way in which it has access to free radio coverage. All the independent radio stations must pay a great deal of money for access to the wavelengths. It enjoys that free access by almost general agreement. If the BBC wants to have friends in the House, it must ensure that it continues to provide the public service that we have come to expect from it. I regret the decision that it has taken on "Yesterday in Parliament".
Secondly, an announcement was made yesterday by the Minister for Local Government and Housing. I have been in the House for a little while, and I know that Governments have the habit of slipping out news shortly before the House rises for a recess. The Government have shown that they are no different from previous Administrations. Yesterday, the Minister for Local Government and Housing sent a letter to all Derbyshire Members, telling us that the Deputy Prime Minister had announced his decision on council tax capping for 1998–99.
In her letter, the Minister tells us that Derbyshire county council is the only county to be designated for possible capping. I understand that the county council has 28 days in which to make representations to the Government before they come forward with an order.
It is ironic that this is the first time that the county council has been designated for possible capping. During the 18 years of Conservative government, it was never capped. It did some crazy things during that period, including increasing its rate on numerous occasions. Now we have new Labour, and a new Labour Government have designated Derbyshire for capping.
In the run-up to the general election, all the Labour candidates in Derbyshire were saying that the county would receive better treatment from a Labour Government. They claimed that it would be looked after, because somehow it had been unfairly treated in the past


by the Conservative Government. Alas, that seems not to have happened. When we debated this matter in February all the Derbyshire Members except me supported the Deputy Prime Minister's capping criteria. I suppose that we cannot complain now when we find that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister for Local Government and Housing have decided to follow through with possible capping.
It annoys me intensely that the county council knew exactly what it was doing. Indeed, it was bragging. It issued press releases telling the people of Derbyshire that, if it was not allowed to break the cap, there would have to be specific cuts. It told us where the cuts would come. Incidentally, it has never singled out its public relations department for any cuts. Instead, it has referred to education and social services. It has issued many press releases, and I could refer to them, but I shall not do so out of courtesy to other hon. Members—I understand that we are under pressure of time. Undoubtedly we shall be able to return to this subject if the Government introduce an order.
The most sickening feature is that, a few weeks ago, the Government allocated to Derbyshire more than £1 million to reduce class sizes. That was hailed by the Prime Minister and Education Ministers as a great move forward for the county. However, it must be understood that the council tax re-billing of all the households in Derbyshire will cost more than £500,000. That money could have been used for the provision of services. It could have been used, for example, to continue to reduce class sizes, a move that we all welcome. I have no difficulty in welcoming the pressure that is being put on reducing class sizes.
The county council knew that there was a possibility of its being capped, and it now seems that the Government will impose a cap. Let us be clear that we are talking of the Government's capping criteria. Those criteria have nothing to do with anything inherited from the Conservative Government. Instead, we have new Labour's capping criteria. New Labour's judgment was announced yesterday by the Minister for Local Government and Housing.
In the hon. Lady's letter to me—I presume that it was sent to all Derbyshire Members—she writes:
We are satisfied that on the basis of the information so far available to us the reduction is reasonable and achievable in all the circumstances of Derbyshire County Council.
Representatives of Derbyshire county council met the Minister, and, using the usual happy-clappy words that we get from the Government, she assured them that she understood their problems—she understood what they meant, and she had sympathy with them. However, when it came to the Government announcing their capping criteria, there was no sympathy whatsoever.
We are talking of the first full year when the Government can say that they are totally in control of local government spending. The only county council they are designating for possible capping is Derbyshire. As I have said, the re-billing of every household in the county will cost more than £500,000. That money could be better used in providing many services.
There are schools in my constituency, especially in Belper, which are overcrowded because of the large housing developments that have taken place in the area.

It is against that background that the county council faces re-billing costs amounting to more than £500,000. If that money has to be spent, it will take longer to resolve some of the overcrowding problems, for example.
We have heard a great deal about the problems faced by the countryside. My constituency is an area of about 350 square miles. Within it is some of the most attractive scenery, without doubt, in the midlands. Indeed, it has some of the most attractive scenery in the United Kingdom. That underlines some of the problems that less-favoured farming areas are facing.
Our countryside is beautiful because it has been looked after by farmers for generations—not because of some accident. It is beautiful because of the way it has been managed and conserved. Unless the Government take some action, especially in some of the less-favoured areas, to give help and support to farmers, our beautiful countryside will not be there for future generations. These areas will not be cherished and well looked after as they have been so far.
The Government might say that some of the problems in the countryside have been inherited. That may be so, but the Government are the Government of the day. Therefore, they must take the action that is required to ensure that people in less-favoured areas can get a living from the countryside, thereby ensuring that it is available for future generations to enjoy.
Those are the points that I wish to raise before the House rises for the Easter recess. I could speak for much longer about Derbyshire county council, but I shall not do so because I know that there is a huge demand for speaking time in this debate.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is a brave and incredibly foolhardy man who ignores the views of the Speaker of the House. The gentleman in charge of the BBC is taking his life in his hands. He seems to believe that the Radio 4 programmes that report Parliament are of so little importance that he can continue with his intended changes without apparently taking note of the views that you, Madam Speaker, expressed on behalf of Parliament.
The BBC is still—just—a public broadcasting system that is very much valued throughout the world, so it really pains me that it has decided, in an arbitrary and extraordinarily stupid way, to proceed with basic changes that will have a tremendous impact on the reporting of Parliament and all its functions. I got into terrible trouble the other day—which, considering what a mild and flexible woman I am, I find very hurtful—when I suggested that this was a failure in the BBC's duty. One of the Lobby correspondents then suggested that anybody who got so much publicity for Pooh was not a woman to be treated seriously, but I do work reasonably hard in this establishment.
The BBC seems to be ignoring one of the most important functions of public broadcasting: to allow listeners to make up their own minds about what they hear. I am sure that it is easy for the best journalists in the world to interpret what Members of Parliament say, both in the Chamber and in Select Committees, but from my own experience, occasionally their interpretation is not accurate. Occasionally they go for the superficial. They do not have sufficient time in their programmes to


look in depth at what is really happening in Parliament, so their reporting is no substitute for what Members say and for what Select Committees and the other aspects of Parliament do.
I have looked carefully at all the arguments made by Radio 4 for the changes, particularly to programmes such as "Yesterday in Parliament", and some of the arguments are pretty puerile. In fact they are fairly insulting. The current audience for "Yesterday in Parliament" at 8.45 am is 1.3 million. That is more than the audience for "Newsnight", although nobody is saying that.
The audience will be reduced by a third or a half if the programme is shifted to long wave. I, for example, have to use an old radio to get long wave. When I am in London, I live in the centre of the city. I cannot pick up a clear programme on long wave on the existing apparatus I have, and I see no reason to buy another old radio to please the BBC. I cannot be unique: there must be others who suffer in precisely the same way.
Even BBC managers say that only a third of the Radio 4 audience listens on long wave. If that is true, there will be a massive loss of information to important segments of the community. We are talking about 650,000 listeners a day, not just friends of Members of Parliament, but large numbers of the general public.
I have a particular interest in this as a Chairman of a Select Committee. I happen to think that one of the really useful things that Parliament has done is set up Select Committees, which are effective, which take evidence, produce detailed reports and offer advice to the House of Commons and, coincidentally, the Government, about what is important. It is extraordinary that the detailed programme "In Committee" will be scrapped altogether, to be replaced by "The Westminster Hour", which will have a totally different political brief—we know what that will be.
We have lots of exciting, amusing and interesting people in this place, but they may not all get on "The Westminster Hour", incredible though that may seem. Perhaps some of the reporting will be fairly superficial. Perhaps—dare one say it?—more time will be given to subjects that journalists regard as important but the public do not.
I have a sad example of that. Last night, I listened to the late evening bulletin of Independent Radio News, which I remember as a remarkable service in the past, and two of the biggest items were, first, the adultery of an Army officer—I am sure it was fascinating to him, but it was astonishingly boring to me—and, secondly, the fact that someone had returned to his wife.
Well, good. We are all for the family. It is nice that people return to their wives—although there are occasions when wives do not want them back—but, frankly, the idea that that is news is embarrassing. It assumes that the whole world consists of people who have an attention span of two and a half seconds, and are basically idiots.
Of course, there are people who vote for the Conservative party, so there may be a number of idiots in the population, but the reality is that we must treat the people of the United Kingdom seriously. We must assume that they want to know what their elected Parliament is doing. That is what democracy is about. Once people do

not know what we do here, at any level, we are in grave danger, because they will be entirely reliant on other people's interpretation.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Perhaps I can point out another specious argument used by the chairman of the BBC: because the majority of Members of Parliament have not issued their own personal protest about these changes, he assumes that they are happy with them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that our own Speaker has made representations, and that all the expressions of opinion are entirely in accord with what the hon. Lady has said this morning, gives the lie to that fact?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is astonishing that the chairman of the BBC should be so ill informed, and that he assumes that the Speaker does not speak for the House of Commons. For whom does Madam Speaker speak? She speaks not only for the Chairman of the Select Committee concerned, but for us, firmly and loudly. I have never heard of anyone ignoring the representations that Madam Speaker makes. She made a clear statement that the BBC is probably failing in its public duty.
I am not altogether surprised that Sir Christopher Bland finds it difficult to understand that, because the only time that I complained to him, he did not answer my letter. He sent it off to the producer about whom I was complaining, who wrote back and said that he was sorry that the programme "did not work" for me. If that is the level of the producers that the BBC has, perhaps we could get rid of quite a few of them and save a bit of money.
The reality is that, although BBC managers admitted privately that no audience research had identified the changes that they are pushing, some of the changes will materially alter the way in which people learn about Parliament and its doings. After all, laws carry with them sanctions. What we do here is not just decide where the odd Belisha beacon will go. We frame laws under which the United Kingdom will operate for many years to come.
What we do here carries with it sanctions against people's lives. What we do changes not only their health care and education, but the future of their relationships with other countries. It changes their role in employment. It changes every aspect of their lives. That is why there is a democratic Government. That is why many of us fight to get here. That is why we think it important that what we do should be represented.
I am desperately angry with the way in which the BBC is behaving, because I believe that the work it does in Committee, in its radio programmes, in its television programmes that seriously report Parliament, is so fundamental that it should not be under-valued. The BBC will lose a large number of listeners and viewers, and when it has got it all wrong, it will scrabble to try to get them back. We have seen that in changes to other programmes. We have seen the way in which audiences for other serious programmes have been decimated.
Although I value the programme "From Our Own Correspondent", I have not heard it since it was changed to a completely different time. It is not that I do not want to; it is because I cannot. It appears quite impossible for the BBC to understand that the decline in its viewing and listening figures may relate to the fact that people go to work. There are still some people who leave home between 8.30 am and 9.00 am, but that is such a revolutionary idea that it has not crossed the minds of the people who are taking these decisions.


I have always supported the BBC, but I find it increasingly difficult to do so. I have always believed that public service broadcasting is a jewel. I like it when I go to America and people tell me how lucky I am to have the BBC. Having worked in what are loosely called "the media", I like to hear people praise the BBC for what it has done in the past—but now I am very dispirited and angry about the BBC's arrogance and ignorance, and about the fact that it ignores what Members of Parliament say. The media think that what those nice people up in the Press Gallery have to say is much more important than what Members of Parliament are deciding and voting on. That is not just asinine stupidity: it is totally unacceptable.
Perhaps we could suggest one other change. I know that Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe was the only member of the governing body to vote against the changes. Perhaps we should offer our own views of possible changes for the future, and get rid of the chairman and governors, replacing them with sensible people who know what is going on. Perhaps we should do something to enable the general public to find out what Parliament really is, what it does, and above all what it represents—for that is wholly outwith the knowledge or instincts of the current governors of the BBC.

10 am

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I too would like to be associated with the remarks just made.
I am speaking on behalf of constituents of mine. When hon. Members do that, they nearly always want the Government to spend more money. I am not asking the Government to spend more money. Often, too, Members want special rules or conditions to be imposed to protect their constituents. I do not want that, either. Indeed, I seek the very opposite.
On other occasions, Members claim that the Government are doing nothing or have no sympathy for the cause that they have in mind. That is not why I am speaking this morning. I want to discuss an issue that requires no Government money and no special rules or exemptions; and it does not lack Government support at the moment. It concerns the European Union's provisional anti-dumping levy on unbleached cotton. The subject is perhaps not widely discussed by people sitting on buses, but in the community of Strines in my constituency, people do discuss it. Strines Textiles is a textile finishing firm which faces ruin as a result of the imposition of the levy.
The problem has not sprung up this morning or this year. We are now in the second cycle of this absurd process. The European Commission is taking steps to protect the textile industry across the EU—surely a laudable aim—but, unfortunately, what it has chosen to do is counter-productive and is destroying jobs in this and other EU countries.
The anti-dumping levy consists of the imposition of an additional duty or levy on unbleached cotton that is manufactured outside the EU and then imported to the EU for the use of textile finishers. Members will know that, in the past, the United Kingdom has had a proud and substantial textile industry which included all phases of production, from spinning right through to the finishing of fabrics. But changes inside the EU, and changes in the

UK's textile industry, mean that there is now practically no weaving of raw cotton into material in the EU, and none at all in the United Kingdom.
So this levy, designed to protect the spinners and producers of what is called grey cloth or unbleached cotton, is completely unnecessary and counter-productive.
The European Commission has the power to introduce a provisional duty. It lasts for about six months, and is then subject to confirmation by the member states. Some two years ago, such a provisional duty was imposed, and was fought vigorously by the UK Government of the time—and by other EU Governments. In due course, the provisional levy was dropped.
Meanwhile, a disaster had already occurred. Raw material costs to the fabric finishing companies in the UK were raised by between 15 and 20 per cent. The intention behind the levy is that it should protect the producers of grey cloth inside the EU, and guarantee their market, but there are nothing like enough producers of grey cloth in the EU to fill the gap. The importing countries that were not subject to the levy promptly raised their prices by the amount of the levy anyway, so that all imported grey cloth immediately became more expensive in the EU by roughly the amount of the levy.
Therefore, external suppliers increased their prices to our finishing textile industry. The European weaving industry, such as it is, is incapable of filling the gap; and to make matters worse, some raw-cloth-weaving nations are also keen to develop their own textile finishing industries, and have taken the opportunity to set up their own trade—which, of course, can purchase the raw materials without having to pay the levy at all. Not only do they have lower labour costs, but they therefore have lower raw material costs.
The process has exposed the fact that, on this occasion, the European Commissioners have been unaware that the textile industry is a global market. Two years ago, before the first introduction of the provisional anti-dumping levy, Strines Textiles in my constituency employed 230 people. It had emerged from a management buyout some five years before, when it had been on the verge of closure, and had developed a range of specialist textile finishing products that go into the high fashion trade—and, incidentally, also into Ministry of Defence contracts.
The impact of the provisional anti-dumping levy on Strines's competitiveness meant that, by May of last year, the firm had shed more than half the work force, and was on the brink of closure. One of my first jobs on being elected was to raise the matter in the House and with the Department of Trade and Industry.
I have had support at every stage. The first anti-dumping levy was removed shortly before the general election. For the past six to nine months, the company has been gradually getting back on its feet with a cheap supply of imported materials; once again, it has been able to compete in the global market. Then, on 25 March this year, the EU Commissioners once again imposed the duty. That will be catastrophic for my constituents and their families, and for the work force and management of Strines.
If any hon. Member has a textile firm in his or her constituency which believes that the duty is a good thing, I should be glad if they got in touch with me. I can find no one in the textile trade in the UK who believes that the


imposition of the duty will do anything to protect the market or ensure the long-term survival of the industry in the EU.
The European Commission has argued that finishers such as Strines Textiles will be able to withstand the imposition of the levy because they are adding high value to the product, but the market is global and the technology is moving away from the European Union, so the impact will be counter-productive. [Interruption.] Contrary to what I hear from some Labour Members, I support the EU's work in protecting trade and industry, although I am a critic of this mechanism. The EU must take more account of individual nations and their industries. I emphasise that only five EU nations have agreed to the provisional levy—a minority voted in favour—but the levy will still be imposed.
I call on the Government to press the Commission as strongly as possible to abandon the provisional anti-dumping levy and to ensure during their presidency that the eight EU nations that joined us in opposing the provisional duty should be reinforced in their views, and encouraged to make them known to Commissioners. I hope that our presidency will be used to put in place guidelines that would make it impossible for Commissioners to impose a provisional duty when it would demonstrably cost jobs and damage the industry that they intend to protect.
Some workers at Strines Textiles are the fourth generation to work at the firm. They have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps twice in the past 10 years, and they are shattered to be on the brink of disaster once again—not because their product is bad, not because they are inefficient, not because their productivity is poor and not because their pricing is are wrong, but because someone is trying to help them. They say clearly, "Please stop helping us, because it is doing the damage."
I do not want money or special rules; on the contrary, we want a free, fair and open market, which would allow Strines Textiles to flourish.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful to have been called to speak, and I want to raise on behalf of my constituents the consequences of a recent decision of the education committee of the county of Essex, which, at a meeting this week, determined that it would end home-to-school transport for students aged over 16. The change goes counter to the traditional support of all parties for home-to-school transport.
The proposal is that pupils who currently benefit from transport and those whose parents are on income support will continue so to do, but the remainder will not, and will have to find the fare to travel to sixth forms or to colleges. The decision is especially pernicious in a rural area. The people in the villages in my constituency do not have a sixth form to which they can walk or cycle, but have to travel to Braintree or another town where there is such a facility. For example, Coggeshall has a distinguished school, Honywood, which has a good reputation, but education finishes at 16. Students from Coggeshall will be obliged to buy tickets to travel to further their education.
This is a particularly unfortunate policy, because it penalises those who live in small towns, villages and rural areas, and those who are less well off than their fellows.

There is a mosaic of discrimination: Witham, in my constituency, has sixth form education, and students there can carry on through the system without the burden of paying to travel, but parents of the Catholic faith would almost certainly send their children to the John Payne school in Chelmsford, which is many miles distant. The concession of free transport for over-16s will be ended, so the policy discriminates against those who send their children to denominational schools, which is especially hard on those from less well-off backgrounds.
Great play is made of countryside questions; indeed, one sometimes thinks that some hon. Members take the view that everyone in the countryside is pursuing the fox and finishing off with a supper of beef on the bone. However, other countryside matters cause great concern. We do not want the countryside to become a ghetto for the well-off or the weekender; we want a countryside where ordinary families can live, bring up their children and send them to schools at a cost they can afford.
I regret that Essex county council education committee has made this change, and it is strange that it has been made after the policy has been in place for so many decades. Those who are not intensely familiar with Essex may not know of recent developments in the county. The political balance has changed, not because hon. Members have overlooked a special county election, or because there have been a spate of by-election losses by the governing Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, or because there has been a mass defection from them to the Conservative party—but because the boroughs of Southend and Thurrock have been deleted from the historic county of Essex and granted unitary status. That action, which was taken at midnight on 31 March, changed the balance in the county. A consequence, I regret, has been the policy change that I have outlined.
I hope that Conservative Members will prevail upon their colleagues on Essex county council to consider whether the change will help poorer people and those who live in small towns and rural areas, and to reconsider the policy.

Sir Peter Emery: This is only the second time in 38 years that I have spoken in such an Adjournment debate. I divided the House last time, but the Lord President will be pleased to know that I do not intend to do so today.
Before I discuss the Bournemouth symphony orchestra, I must agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that hon. Members must make a greater demonstration of their condemnation of the way in which the BBC is treating the reporting of Parliament to the nation. The BBC appears to think that it is much more important than Parliament. In its decisions, it seems to be saying, "To hell with Parliament. We will decide how we report it, and Parliament will have no say." Perhaps it should think about what Members of Parliament will say when its grant comes up for discussion.
I condemn the way in which "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" have become much more editorialised. Producers and commentators are interpreting what Parliament is saying rather than reporting what hon. Members themselves are saying, which is unacceptable.
Now for praise and condemnation: I praise the work of the Bournemouth symphony orchestra, especially in the west country, and its programme; and I condemn the fact


that Devon county council has seen fit to cut the grant of under £100,000 for the forthcoming year to nothing. There is considerable concern in my constituency. Although the orchestra does not play there, the problem affects Devon and, indeed, Cornwall. It appears that the Liberal-Democrat-controlled county council lacks an understanding of music and the arts, and the role they play in the lives of civilised people.
For more than 30 years, the Bournemouth symphony orchestra has provided the main professional music service for Devon and the south-west. It has given regular concerts, not just in the cities but in rural areas, and the sinfonietta has travelled to Teignmouth, north Devon, Ilfracombe, Honiton and many smaller areas. The county council's decision will destroy that at a stroke, and will deprive the population of the orchestra's work in general. The council made its decision without consulting the orchestra, the Arts Council or the districts, and its unilateral action has been rightly criticised.
The orchestra promotes a rolling programme. In good faith, and because of demanding lead time, it has entered into contracts for the future. It will have to adhere to those contracts, although it has no money to meet the cost of commitments in the county for 1998–99.
Activity in the county is supported by a tripartite funding arrangement between the county, the district and the Arts Council. The withdrawal of the grant puts the balancing factor from the Arts Council at risk, because it is provided on a shared basis. The county council does not seem to have taken its responsibility on board, and that has implications for the south-west as a whole.
The council seems to have ignored the fact that one of the orchestra's bases is the great hall of Exeter university has applied to the National Lottery Commission for a refurbishment grant, and its figures are based on the assumption that the orchestra will contribute to the hall's costs in future. As that contribution will not now be made, the lottery application is immediately at risk. The receipt of a special grant from the Arts Council out of its stabilisation fund is also at risk. There is a real danger that Devon and the south-west will be deprived entirely of the orchestra's activities.
Musical education will also be affected. Last year, the sinfonietta and members of the orchestra's staff held more than 80 teaching sessions in different schools, explaining the use of musical instruments and talking about music as an art form. That will now disappear overnight.
I appeal to the Lord President, who I know is a very generous person, to see whether she or the Government can take any action to help the orchestra. Perhaps she will ask the Liberal-Democrat-controlled county council to review its decision. It is not yet too late to act.
The orchestra is supported by a massive amount of voluntary work. I should have said at the outset that it is a registered charity. It receives a good deal of financial support from those who want to support music in the south-west. Perhaps the BBC will play its part by reporting part of my speech, and members of the public in the south-west may then send money to the orchestra—to Bournemouth, or to its headquarters in Poole.
The council's decision affects not just my constituency, but the arts and music in the south-west as a whole. If the services of the Bournemouth orchestra are lost, it will be a tragedy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to speak for two or three minutes about the proposed rate cap in Derbyshire, which was raised by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
It is strange to think that, when I was on the Labour party national executive with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), we were on opposite sides of the fence: I was on the left, and she was on the right. Now my hon. Friend is old Labour. New Labour has moved to the right of old Labour, and she and I are now in roughly the same place. What a difference a day makes. No, I am not going to sing it.
My hon. Friend talked about the BBC. It is sad to think that, for all those years—day in, day out—all of us Labour Members, and probably some Conservative Members, supported the BBC. We told people how wonderful it was that we had a public sector broadcasting service. We cannot say that any more. The BBC is more concerned about paying Camelot than about doing the job that it is supposed to do. It has gone down market: there is no doubt of that.
Anyone who watches the news can see that standards are getting lower and lower. We used to be able to say that the BBC could lift its sights to the highest common factor; now it is a question of the lowest common denominator. Murdoch will be putting in a bid for it next. That is a crazy thought, but, given what is happening, it is conceivable. Those at the BBC ought to look at some of its old programmes—some of the transmissions of the past. They would then see that the BBC is unquestionably slipping further and further down market.
As I said, I want to talk about the proposed rate cap in Derbyshire. The situation is not exactly as the hon. Member for West Derbyshire described it, but he is a Tory Whip, and I expect him to do the job he has been sent to do. He is not here now, but I will say it anyway: he has to do his job.
Over the past 15 years or so, Derbyshire county council became a target, or scapegoat, for the Tory Government. There is no denying that. Tory Members used to urge Ministers on, saying, "Hammer Derbyshire." They used words like that. They wanted the Labour-controlled county council to suffer. They used to come here and make speeches—they are all in Hansard—calling on Ministers to do Derbyshire down.
Naturally, the Tory Ministers did that. It is bordering on hypocrisy for an hon. Member to come into the Chamber now and give the impression that he is worried about Derbyshire's ratepayers, when Tory Members called on the Government to cut its grants left, right and centre. The Government did cut the grants, and we estimate that we lost between £200 million and £250 million during those dismal years when the Tories were in power.
On one occasion, I came to the defence of the Labour-controlled county council, putting in for an Adjournment debate. I turned up at 11 pm or midnight, and suddenly the Adjournment debate was not like any normal Adjournment debate. Some hon. Members may remember that occasion. All the Derbyshire Tories were present—Edwina Currie and all the others who were defeated in the election, and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. I was putting the case for the


Labour-controlled county council when Greg Knight, a Tory Member, raised a point of order and demanded this, that and the other.
Anyone who reads the Hansard report for that day will see that the Adjournment debate did not take place. Tory Members attack Labour Members for asking a few questions and being a bit awkward now and again, and the report of that debate is littered with points of order. I got out about three sentences in about half an hour. Because the Tories could not stop me, they called, "I spy strangers." That caused a 15-minute Division, and the Serjeant at Arms had to get them out of the Lobby. By the time they came back, the half hour was up. That was done because I had the temerity to speak on behalf of the Labour-controlled county council whose grants had been cut by the Tory Government year after year.
That Hansard makes good reading for anybody who wants to see what happened when Tory fanatics were determined to see that Derbyshire ratepayers did not get a fair crack of the whip. The county council was prepared to fight on behalf of miners during the strike. During the holidays, it decided to hand out food packages to the kids in miners' families, because, as the schools were off, the children could not get school meals. Such actions got up the noses of Tory Members, and we were subjected to attacks.
In the Government's second rate support grant initiative, they have said that they will make marginal changes. They have to stick, so they said, within Tory spending plans. That was a crazy idea. During the general election, we should not have got that round our necks. I did not get it round mine. It was a mistake, and we would have won the election handsomely without saying that. It has been a problem, and the sooner we get away from it, the better.
The next Budget, the one in 1999, will be important, because on that day I hope that we will wean ourselves off Tory spending limits. In the meantime, the Government are saddled with the problem of that manifesto commitment. Wrong as it was, there it is, and the Government were able to make only marginal changes to the rate support grant. They were sensible changes, in that they shifted a little money from some of the posh areas such as Westminster, which had been chucking money away right, left and centre on this, that and the other. There was a marginal movement of money to some depressed areas, and especially to those in which pits had been shut.
There were shifts—not great, just marginal—in areas such as Lancashire, but Derbyshire did not benefit, because it is really two counties. On the western side, there is the beautiful peak district, with small industries. In general, it is an area of tiny villages—it could be Devon. The eastern side had the old coalfield, which has gone. It is not a question of some pits closing: every one has been closed.
We did not benefit from the new Labour Government's marginal changes to the rate support grant this year. As a result, we got the lowest settlement. On top of that, in some pit villages 30 to 40 per cent. of people are out of work. The settlement was not good enough. Derbyshire has more kids in classes than any other county. I accept that other hon. Members may be able to point to similar problems, but ours is the worst, and we must change that.
Against that background, would it not have made sense for the rate support grant to favour Derbyshire a little more? However, because of the new criteria, it did not quite measure up, so Derbyshire county council decided to go through the cap. It would have liked to go through by as much as £10 million, but it decided to be new Labour and to be careful, and it went to £3.9 million. The council thinks that it will just about scrape home with that extra money.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will stand in this afternoon for the Prime Minister, who is trying to pull off a big job in Northern Ireland. I hope that he succeeds: it is important that he does. He is doing his level best, but no doubt, if he fails, the BBC will blame him. It probably has the headline already.
The Deputy Prime Minister has been asked to issue a declaration about capping. I must put the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) right. It is a formality—at least I hope that that is all it is. That is what I have been told. I shall explain. According to law, a form is sent out, and, within 28 days, the county council and Labour Members such as me from Derbyshire will put the case for the extra £3.9 million. I am making a start now in case we are not heard loudly and for long enough. Requesting the issue of the notice is a formal matter.
I want people to understand that the ink is not yet dry, and that we have to battle to make sure that we get the extra £3.9 million. Someone has said, "What about Somerset?" It was capped last year: I know all about that—I was here. I did not support the Government that day, either. Warwickshire was also involved in the rate capping procedure, and then it disappeared. Derbyshire wants to be treated in the way that Warwickshire was treated last year. We do not want to be treated like Somerset—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. We are debating teachers' jobs and class sizes, and the fundamental matters that bring Labour Members to Parliament.
Warwickshire came up with a package that enabled it to get through the cap, and it was dropped. Our amount is not as big as that of Warwickshire. It is £3.9 million, and I have reason to believe that Warwickshire went over £4 million. I want my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass that message to all those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so that, at the meeting within the next 28 days, we can get a settlement that will save ratepayers the extra £500,000 it will cost to send out the second phase of rate notices. That is the last thing we need.
It is necessary to put the record straight. We have reached the negotiating point, and the issue is getting crucial. We want success, and I want my right hon. Friend to make sure that the Cabinet and Ministers will take decisions that ensure that we do not have to face a rate-capping procedure over the next few weeks in Parliament. As no other authorities are involved, the Government will not even have to present an order.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Some 15 hours ago in the House, I spoke about the millennium project in Portsmouth harbour, and my speech this morning also relates to that.
That project is an exciting one for the year 2000. I hope to be here in two years to invite every hon. Member to come to Portsmouth harbour to see the dramatic tower


on the Portsmouth side, and to visit the museums—the submarine museum, the Priddy's Hard museum, the interesting museum of naval medicine at the Royal hospital, Haslar, which should make us all grateful that we live in the 20th century and do not go to sea, and the Gosport museum.
The point of the millennium project at Portsmouth harbour is to show our naval and military heritage. It backs the local features of HMS Victory, HMS Warrior 1860—I declare an interest as a director of HMS Warrior 1860—and the Mary Rose, Henry VIII's magnificent ship. It is the artefacts relating to those military and naval museums that cause me concern.
Priddy's Hard museum has the best collection of torpedoes in the country. It has a Whitehead, a mark 8 torpedo, one of the type that sank the Belgrano, a type 46 torpedo and a Tigerfish torpedo; in fact, it has the full range of naval torpedoes. It also has a ship-based Exocet missile and a complete range of guns from Tudor cannons to Victorian guns, world wars one and two guns and later ships' weapons, including a "red beard" nuclear bomb that was carried by fixed-wing aircraft.
The museum has magnificent artefacts, but the concern is that it is not as easy for museums to get artefacts from the Ministry of Defence as it should be. I give one example.
About eight years ago, two 4.5 in guns were sold by the MOD for scrap for about £500. Those are unique in history; they are the early model 4.5 in mark 6 turret gun. Priddy's Hard museum is so anxious to obtain one of those guns that it has paid £8,500 for one, and is paying £3,000 today to have it transferred from Pound's shipyard in Portsmouth harbour to the museum. Therefore, somewhere, somehow, someone has lost out on a large amount of money, and it has been difficult for the museum to gain this and other artefacts that will be of significant importance and interest to local visitors to the millennium project in the Gosport-Portsmouth area.
Some time ago, my constituent, Mr. Bill Adnitt, came to my constituency surgery and drew my attention to the fact that Priddy's Hard museum is trying to obtain type 6 gyro sights, gun sight telescopes, open sights, cleaning gear, special stripping tools and books of reference, which, as he pointed out, are all required to give the whole picture of naval and military equipment through the ages.
I took the point up with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence in a letter written on 17 March, in which I asked him whether he agreed
to make a policy statement that Service-related museums such as Priddy's Hard Armaments Museum and the Royal Naval Submarine Museum in my constituency could be given appropriate indication and opportunities to acquire redundant equipment in order to facilitate their important work of maintaining our naval heritage.
I have absolutely no complaint that I have not yet received a reply; I would not expect to receive a reply to a substantial request within two weeks or so. He and his Department have always been extremely helpful and courteous in responding to requests, but my point is that there is added urgency to the request.
Only yesterday, I was given information about a further item, called a valiant rig, which is currently at HMS Dolphin. Weapon-handling training equipment, it consists of a large steel rig, a dummy torpedo tube—a cut-away

version of an air ram—two consoles and various steel attachments. The total weight of that equipment is 20 tonnes. Priddy's Hard museum is anxious to obtain one small part only of that—the dummy torpedo tube.
The due date for tender for those items was 2 April, so it is urgent that the MOD considers my request that museums should be given priority treatment when military equipment becomes redundant. If special instruction is not given by the MOD urgently, the valiant rig, and no doubt many other features, will be sold for scrap for comparatively low prices. What my constituents would like is an instruction that they should be allowed to remove items such as the dummy torpedo tube from items that would otherwise be scrapped, and that they should be put into museums.
This may seem an item of special interest. It is, but it is of keen interest to a number of people in my constituency. If that urgent request is considered by the MOD without delay, it might be possible for artefacts and items of historical interest to be retained by the nation, rather than scrapped.

Mr. David Taylor: I raise another local issue. My constituency lies at the heart of England, and is a transport crossroads for the midlands. At its centre is my home town of Ashby, which is battered, bruised and bewildered from the incessant heavy traffic. The need for some relief is overwhelming, and a town bypass is important for reasons that I will describe.
Historic Ashby is North-West Leicestershire's ancient market town, and it remains a focal point for shopping and commerce. It serves a growing number of town residents, as well as surrounding villages. Ashby boasts more than 150 listed buildings. Some of the historic passages, which are called "courts", off Market street have been converted into period shopping mews. A market is still held in the former town hall. There is a wide choice of licensed premises and places to eat, and a range of accommodation, hotel or bed-and-breakfast.
The bypass is crucial for tourism reasons. Thousands of visitors stop by in Ashby because of its convenient location, encouraged by A42 and M42 signs advertising local services. The town is a base for visiting nearby attractions such as Snibston discovery park, Calke abbey, Donington race track and the new national forest. English Heritage has reported a sharp rise in visitors to Ashby castle, the setting of the tournament in Sir Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe". The castle has become a popular venue for civil war and similar historical re-enactments. The spacious grounds below the castle offer great potential for hosting even larger public spectacles.
The bypass is crucial for environmental reasons. Ashby-de-la Zouch is just two miles from the oak tree marking the centre of the national forest. Westminster wood was launched in the Palace of Westminster only yesterday by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The wood is in the heart of my constituency.
Because of its features and amenities, Ashby has been described as
the jewel in the crown
of the national forest by a director of the National Forest Company, which predicts that the prestigious national resource will in due course attract 6 million visitors every year.


The bypass is crucial for education reasons. My town has five primary and two secondary schools. Many of the 2,300 students who attend Ivanhoe college or Ashby grammar school, a comprehensive of which I am a governor, must cross the A511, the road for which we are trying to obtain a bypass. The grammar school occupies two sites either side of the busy Leicester road, and there is a frequent flow of pupils between those sites. Both Leicester road and North street, past the entrance to Ivanhoe college, are heavily used by vehicles avoiding A511 bottlenecks. Burton road junior school, which has 270 children, is located right on the A511, next to a difficult and dangerous intersection.
A bypass for Ashby is important for employment reasons. The former mining areas of north-west Leicestershire and south Derbyshire, which surround Ashby-de-la-Zouch, have rightly become a focus of regeneration, helped by funding such as RECHAR. Improved access to motorways via Ashby's bypass will encourage business investment. Ashby's largest employers, United Biscuits and Ashby Dairy Company, account for almost 1,000 heavy goods vehicle movements per day. Other centres in the area are expanding, adding to the heavy flows of local and long-haul heavy good vehicles.
The bypass is also crucial for sports and leisure. Ashby's population growth has led to greater demands for sport and recreation. More indoor and outdoor facilities could be accommodated close to the town centre. The national forest is already adding a range of new activities in the surrounding countryside. Uncongested access in and out of the town is needed for the potential to be fully achieved.
The cause of the town's problems is not difficult to identify; it lies at the intersection of two major trunk routes—Birmingham to Nottingham and Leicester to Burton upon Trent. In 1988, before the Ashby section of the A42 opened, traffic levels reached saturation point, with more than 20,000 vehicles passing through the town centre during a 12-hour period.
Since then, housing and industrial developments, the emergence of the M42-A42 as a major traffic corridor and other factors have resulted in traffic levels climbing back from a low of 12,000 to a weekly average approaching 16,000 per 12 hours in Market street and 20,000 again on parts of Nottingham road. Even taking account of the recently completed Derby southern relief road, the county council predicts a further 3,000 vehicles by next year. In the absence of a bypass, vehicles will continue to use rat runs through housing estates and narrow lanes.
The effects of the incessant, injurious flood of traffic are manifold. There is an impact on congestion. The route of the A511 through Ashby involves complex junctions and 90-degree turns that are unsuitable for HGVs and baffling to strangers. The only so-called alternatives to Market street as routes through the town—North street and South street—are restricted to one-way flow because of bends, narrowness and the risk to buildings. Because the shopping and commercial facilities of the town are concentrated in that area, Market street is thronged throughout the day with pedestrians, delivery vehicles and parked cars.
The situation also causes delays. The intricate and crowded nature of Ashby town centre and the controls for pedestrian safety contribute to huge delays in traffic

progress. Peak period queues often stretch as far as one mile from Market street back to the A42 intersection. Long tailbacks also build up on the approaches from Measham, Burton and Moira. Residents along the A511 endure a ceaseless barrage of vehicles. Even at a quiet time of day, it can take 10 minutes for a resident to get out of their driveway. When traffic is at its heaviest, it can take almost half an hour to drive one mile across town.
There is an impact on health. It is increasingly recognised that exhaust fumes contribute to respiratory and other health problems. Idling or stop-start driving greatly increase fuel consumption, and therefore emissions. There are also safety considerations. There are three pelican crossings on Market street, with further crossings on Bath street, Derby road and Burton road, which are all within a short distance.
There are also considerations of damage. Ashby boasts many attractive period buildings, which are sensitive to damage from vibration. Properties suffer impact damage to walls or overhangs. A national firm of painting contractors which carried out some work in Market street recently described Ashby as the most polluted town in Britain. The county council estimates that almost 4,000 homes in the town would have substantially lower levels of pollution if traffic was reduced by a mere 25 per cent.
The situation also has an impact on development. Excessive congestion frustrates attempts to develop strategies to maximise the potential of the town centre. Current facilities for coach parties to alight and board are poor. Co-ordinating bus links with the planned Ivanhoe rail link is difficult. The volume of through traffic discourages walking and cycling.
Ashby-de-la-Zouch needs a bypass, but not at any price. Full-scale developer funding would entail a major additional housing development. Given the expansion of the town over the past 15 years, that would be inappropriate. At a recent public meeting, speaker after speaker rejected an offer of private funding from Wilcon Homes, which promised to make full construction costs available once it had built and sold a minimum of 450 homes, which were to be part of a green-field development on the northern side of the town. The eventual objective of that development is to build at least 1,000 further homes. Any proposal from any developer would undoubtedly be similar in scale. The momentum to fill the space available between the town and the bypass would be irresistible.
Construction of the bypass should not be conditional on developments of such magnitude. I am sure that other towns are in a similar situation. The increase in population resulting from such developments would over-burden the town's capacity to cope. That would have two consequences: extra local vehicles and pedestrians would cancel out the benefits of the bypass; and increased demands would lead to out-of-town shopping complexes, which would draw trade from the town centre. Both would jeopardise the town's future. If it developed beyond a critical size, the town's historic identity would be swamped by its suburbs. We want no further developments until the bypass is complete.
My birthplace is facing a crucial period. It must continue to fulfil its traditional local role as a focal point for residents and surrounding communities. It must also prepare to fulfil a new national role as a visitor amenity alongside the M42 at the heart of the national forest. The


removal of through traffic is essential. A bypass will make Ashby safer and healthier for residents and visitors, removing frustrating delays, and assisting the preservation and development of the town's amenities. Public funding of the bypass will bring about the necessary improvements without sacrificing Ashby's identity as an historic market town.
As with any road scheme, the environmental costs must be weighed against the benefits. The integrated transport strategy and roads review are considering those issues. The value of the town centre environment vastly outweighs the intrusion that a short bypass would make into the countryside. The projected route of the bypass crosses no sites of special scientific interest. In addition to the bypass, local campaigners strongly support the development of the Ivanhoe rail link to Leicester and Burton upon Trent as a vital component in a town transport strategy that will integrate with the national strategy.
Local people were dismayed that the problems of A511 congestion were not solved when the A42-M42 corridor was created. They will be outraged if they are denied their bypass now.
I congratulate the campaigners on their long efforts to secure a bypass to relieve the incessant heavy flows of traffic that pour through the heart of the town. The campaign has reached a crucial stage, with a submission soon to be made to the county council, which will look to the Government for assistance. The road is essential to reduce congestion, increase safety, decrease pollution and improve the physical environment for residents and visitors. The long-delayed project will deliver great social, economic and environmental benefits for all those who live in, depend on or care about our town.
Local residents and town organisations believe that the scheme should not—I repeat, should not—depend on developer funding, because further expansion would be seriously counter-productive. It should be financed publicly. I strongly endorse that view. I am working with the Bypass Ashby Now Group to persuade the county council and my Government of the overwhelming benefits of that approach.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am very grateful for the opportunity in this Adjournment debate to raise the issue of industrial workers suffering from lung diseases. I should like specifically to comment on the position of slate quarrymen and coal miners, although the issue may affect other industrial workers.
I find it somewhat ironic to be campaigning on that issue in this—possibly my last—Parliament. In my first Parliament, from 1974 to 1979, I was involved in a prolonged campaign to secure compensation for slate quarrymen suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The campaign led to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979, which has enabled about £50 million in compensation to be paid, not only to slate quarrymen but to other industrial workers who previously—because their employers were defunct—did not have a compensation vehicle. We seem to be facing a re-run of those earlier circumstances, which are now affecting quarrymen and ex-quarrymen suffering from emphysema and chronic bronchitis whose former employers are defunct.
A few weeks ago, an historic court victory by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers—on behalf of coal miners and ex-miners suffering from emphysema, chronic bronchitis and asthma—has placed a new focus on the issue. I pay tribute to Bleddyn Hancock, the general secretary of NACODS, who ran a 10-year campaign to win the victory, which should benefit 50,000—perhaps more—miners, ex-miners and their widows.
I want to press Ministers to clarify their response to the court case, and to receive from them assurances on implementing the compensation payments for coal miners that were implicit in the court settlement. The initial reaction to the case of the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was that the Government would meet the settlement in full, and that the cost might be as much as £1,000 million or more. However, subsequent developments have caused some concern.
Interim payments of only £2,000 have been offered in each of 5,000 cases, for a total of about £10 million. I should like an assurance that the Government will settle all cases in full; that the Government will settle all cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis; that the court's comment on asthma will be considered; and that not only workers but their widows will be compensated. I should like to be assured also that the Government will not nit-pick in each case, trying to make each individual prove his suffering. After those workers' long wait for recognition of their entitlement, it would be cruel to deal with their cases in that manner.
I specifically hope that the Government will move quickly, because those people have suffered for so long already, waiting for a settlement. There may be—I hope not—a vested interest among some lawyers working for the Government to try to drag out the matter.
I shall warmly welcome the Government's prompt and full settlement of the coal miners' cases. However, we are back to the position of slate quarrymen—and, undoubtedly, of other workers—whose suffering is just as great as that of the coal miners. Anyone who has seen those men struggling for breath appreciates what they are going through. Many of those who have not been diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis have precisely the same struggle to breathe, as they are suffering from emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Slate quarrymen and coal miners experience precisely the same suffering. Anyone living in a slate quarrying community will have no doubt that working in dusty slate quarries or slate mines leads to suffering from emphysema and chronic bronchitis, just as working in dusty coal mines leads to other conditions.
Unfortunately, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has so far failed to acknowledge the link between working in the slate industry and the incidence of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Statistical arguments are used against recognising the incidence of those diseases. Sadly, because the number of slate quarrymen is relatively small, it is difficult to prove the connection. However, the suffering is just as great in each case. We must urgently accept the fact that emphysema and chronic bronchitis are industrial lung conditions among quarrymen.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend has many workers in his constituency, as I do, who suffer from those diseases.
If the link is recognised, quarrymen would be entitled to industrial injuries disability benefit.
I draw to the Minister's attention recent developments and evidence from other countries, which show that the matter should perhaps be re-examined by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. Studies of quarrymen in eastern Germany and of gold miners in Australia, and analysis of lung conditions of workers in potteries, raise the broader issue of the link between industrial working conditions, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Regardless of whether quarrymen with emphysema and chronic bronchitis are granted disability benefit on the basis of that link, the coal miners' court victory raises the entirely independent matter of lump sum compensation. The Government are reluctant—as they were in the 1970s—to consider quarrymen in the same category as coal miners. The basic argument revolves around the fact that the Government acknowledged responsible for coal miners, who worked for the National Coal Board, which was a public sector employer. Conversely, slate quarrymen worked for subsequently defunct private employers.
On 4 March 1998, in a letter to me, the Prime Minister gave those reasons for refusing slate quarrymen's case. He said:
In addition, we are committed to honouring legitimate claims against British Coal because we have inherited the health liabilities from a state-owned Corporation. The quarrying industry has never been subject to similar state ownership.
Exactly the same argument was used in the 1970s, in response to slate quarrymen and others suffering from pneumoconiosis, silicosis and other lung diseases. Those men worked for defunct private companies, and therefore could not sue their previous employer for compensation. The purpose of the 1979 Act was to provide them with compensation. It is not acceptable now to rely on that old argument.
The principle of compensation for quarrymen suffering from pneumoconiosis and silicosis was won and established in the 1970s, and it should set a precedent. Quarrymen must not be forgotten, as they were in that long-drawn-out five-year period in the mid-1970s—from the recognition that coal miners should receive lump sum compensation, to payments to quarrymen under the 1979 Act.
The 1979 Act provides a framework that the Transport and General Workers' Union believes could be used as a vehicle to pay compensation to those suffering from emphysema, chronic bronchitis and similar lung diseases. Section 1(3) of the Act, as amended by the Social Security Act 1985, states:
The diseases to which this Act applies are pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and diffuse mesothelioma [and any other disease which is specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act by order made by statutory instrument.]
The subsection enables the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory instrument to include emphysema and chronic bronchitis under that section of the 1979 Act, and thereby create a vehicle to pay compensation to quarrymen, ex-quarrymen and their widows, who have suffered so much.
Coal miners rightly deserve their compensation, which I hope they soon receive. But, please, let us not yet again forget the quarrymen.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to raise a most unusual, but very important case from my constituency, which occurs in the small market town of Bungay, in Suffolk. The case highlights the problems that an individual might face when trying to obtain justice from a large organisation.
Mountbatten road, in Bungay, borders the open countryside, and the rear gardens of some of the properties look out over the countryside. However, there is no danger of green-field house building beyond those rear gardens, because behind them lies a hole—a pit, which is becoming larger every time it rains. The local media called it "a canyon in formation". It is not a joke for the residents—particularly Mr. and Mrs. Watts, who live in Mountbatten road—because the edge of that canyon has now crept up to their rear garden fence. Every time it rains, they fear that their rear garden may begin to disappear. Even worse, the situation is affecting the value of their home, which—like the other modern, detached homes in the road—they have been told is unsaleable.
How did the situation occur? The hole is an old sand and gravel pit, which lay undisturbed and overgrown for at least 50 years—some say 100 years—with its sides secure and covered by vegetation. The pit was not thought of as a problem by the planners when building the Mountbatten road homes, well away from the edge of the pit. Then, a few years ago, the Essex and Suffolk Water company entered the frame. The company supplies water to several parts of East Anglia, and these days, it is part of Lyonnaise des Eaux, a giant corporation of vast resources and reserves.
In the late 1980s, the Essex and Suffolk Water company needed to lay a new water main to supply the town of Bungay and had to cross land to the rear of Mountbatten road. Amazingly, the water main was laid around the edge of the pit, just a few feet from the rim. In October 1993, during heavy rainfall, a land slip occurred, with a quite spectacular result: 20 ft of large blue water main pipe was left suspended across the sides of the pit, which was becoming enlarged as the rain eroded it.
Essex and Suffolk Water reacted swiftly. It dismantled and rerouted the pipe—but where? It rerouted it around the edge of the newly enlarged pit, a few feet from the rim. That sounds amazing, but it is true. It is also true that, in September 1994, another heavy rainstorm caused another land slip, and we saw another aerial water main. Meanwhile, the canyon was becoming larger. I have seen photographs of the results, which created much interest among local people at the time.
The water company returned to the site and again rerouted the pipe—guess where? It again rerouted it around the rim of the newly enlarged pit, although with one difference. It did not bury the water main; it left the pipe lying on the surface and erected a fence around it to keep people away. One has heard of surface water; that was a surface water main. The water company has never said why it did not bury the pipe a third time, although I think that we can guess. There the water pipe lay until July last year.
My constituents, having complained unsuccessfully to the water company, came to see me. The obvious way forward to me was to have a site meeting in order to get senior people from the company down to have a look at what was happening. My first request to Essex and


Suffolk Water did not receive a positive response. It is the only time since I became a Member of Parliament that a written request has been received in such a way. My second letter induced the company finally to agree to meet its customers' elected representative on site. By the time we had the site meeting, however, the pipe had been moved, rerouted and buried in a trench on the other side of the field. The work was carried out in July in the middle of the crop-growing season, and involving paying a farmer considerable compensation for disturbing his crops. That was the end of the water pipe problem; the problem for the people of Mountbatten road is that the pit remains and is becoming larger each time it rains.
The water company accepts no responsibility and is refusing to carry out work to stabilise the sides of the pit. I and many others find that quite staggering. We are asked to believe and accept that digging a trench a few feet from the rim of a pit and then filling it in has no effect on the stability of the land around it. We are asked to accept that, after a pit had been stable for 50 years or more, its collapse within a few years of the pipe being laid had nothing to do with the laying of the pipe.
Despite a repeat performance, we are asked to accept that there was nothing wrong with the water company's engineering. We are asked to accept that there is no ground for wondering why the water company did not learn its lesson after its first attempt. We are asked to accept that the eventual relocation of the pipe on the other side of the field does not show that the original siting was completely wrong. I think that it is an admission by deed of the folly of trying to site a water main around the edge of a pit. That seems common sense to me, but I am only a lay person. A qualified consulting engineer engaged by Mr. Watts has, however, come to the same conclusion in a detailed report. Unfortunately for the residents, the water company has produced its own consulting engineer who refutes that report.
Other evidence is, however, beginning to emerge. The water company's engineer made some verbal comments in 1994 to the effect that he would be recommending repair of the pit. There is evidence that the water company approached the landowner in 1994 with a view to carrying out some repair work. In fact, the water company consultant's report in 1997 said:
I still"—
I emphasise the word "still"—
believe that the pit can be adequately infilled and protected and retained.
There is evidence that the water company originally wanted to put the water main on the other side of the field, but did not fancy dealing with the farmer with whom it has since had to deal. Still, the water company accepts no responsibility.
Is this a case for the Office of Water Services? Unfortunately, Ofwat's response to my constituent was that it had "only a limited role" to play in such matters. Its letter says that it has
no formal jurisdiction over complaints about pipe laying from work done prior to September 1989",
even though the pipes were relaid in 1993 and 1994. To my knowledge, no one from Ofwat even bothered to visit the site. There is an issue about the apparent ineffectiveness of Ofwat in such a case. I welcome the

Government's review of the regulatory powers of such bodies and hope that they will take account of remarkable cases such as the one that I have raised.
Apart from the case, I am concerned about the way in which the water company handled my inquiry. I find that organisations are normally fulsome and open in their response to an inquiry from a Member of Parliament, if only to demonstrate that they have nothing to hide. That was not so in this case. The water company co-operated reluctantly and said as little as possible.
This case is the worst case of injustice that I have come across in the 11 months since I became a Member of Parliament. Essex and Suffolk Water is a large, prosperous and long-standing company which predates the Conservative privatisation programme and does not generally have a bad reputation in our area. In this case, it is walking away from its responsibility, acting cynically and failing to explain itself openly. People in my constituency face the prospect of their homes becoming worthless. They are not asking for compensation; they just want the water company to come back and stabilise the pit. I do not think that that is too much to ask.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Before the House rises for its short Easter recess, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise two matters relating to foreign and Commonwealth affairs and one domestic matter for the Government's consideration.
I feel impelled to raise the foreign and Commonwealth issues for two reasons. First, I shared the pretty bitter disappointment felt in more than one quarter of the House that the Foreign Secretary did not make a statement after his visit to the middle east last month. A visit by a British Foreign Secretary to six countries is, on any account, an important visit. It was also important because the purpose of his tour was to revive the middle east peace process. Secondly, my Question 18 was not reached in Foreign Office questions yesterday and I was not able to catch Madam Speaker's eye to raise one of the matters in a supplementary question.
I should like first to raise the question of Cyprus. I very much welcome its application to join the European Union. Indeed, if conditions are right, I would like to see the EU considerably enlarged. Cyprus is well placed to join the EU, if only—but not only—because its economy is in very good shape. It is one of the very few countries that meets the Maastricht economic convergence criteria, which is more than can be said for the majority of the 11 countries that are hellbent on the foolish escapade of trying to start a single currency on the first day of next year.
My fear is that, as I think might have happened before on matters relating to Cyprus, the United States Government might intervene quietly—albeit behind the scenes—and, in order not to offend Turkey, which is of course a member of NATO, try to delay or, indeed, undermine negotiations on Cyprus. I very much hope that will not be the case. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House could appeal to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to use their good offices and considerable contacts with the United States President and Congress to ensure that that does not happen.
The second issue that I wish to raise is Syria. My question yesterday to the Foreign Secretary was listed at No.18 on the Order Paper, and I later received a written answer. I asked him to make a statement on his recent visit to Syria. He replied:
I had useful discussions on regional issues with President Asad and Foreign Minister Shara'a. We agreed on the need for movement on all tracks of the Middle East Peace Process."—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310. c. 198.]
If I may say so, that is a classic parliamentary answer of its genre. It is presumably accurate; it gives me the minimum information; and, most certainly, it leaves me no wiser.
I wanted to find out from the Foreign Secretary what influence he had had and whether he had discussed with the Syrian Government the very constructive proposal by the Israeli Government that they would be prepared to move their troops out of southern Lebanon, provided that Syria could give some assurances that it would discourage terrorism from the southern part of Lebanon by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.
I further wanted to ask the Foreign Secretary whether there was any response to the suggestion that I put to him at the previous Foreign and Commonwealth Question Time that, if Israel were to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon, it would be a most satisfactory quid pro quo if the Syrian troops were withdrawn from the north of Lebanon. Again, I should be very grateful if the Leader of the House would communicate those points to the Foreign Secretary. If it is not possible to have replies to my questions at the end of this debate—I quite understand that it might not be—could the House have the information in the form of a detailed written answer from the Foreign Secretary; although, as I said, I should have preferred an oral answer?
The domestic matter to which I referred relates to possible changes to the parliamentary calendar. I have the privilege to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works. In that capacity, I was moved to write last December to the Leader of the House, in her capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, asking whether she could make an early statement on any changes that might be proposed to the parliamentary calendar.
The reason I did so was that there is some anxiety that, if the 10 to 12-week parliamentary summer recess were to be significantly changed, it might prejudice some of the necessary renovation and improvement works that we have to conduct in the Palace of Westminster. That in itself is not of paramount importance, but it is necessary to plan many months ahead.
With her usual courtesy, the Leader of the House replied promptly and said that she was circulating to other members of the Modernisation Committee my concerns on the matter. I understand from what she said a few days ago that there is going to be a further report from that Committee shortly after Easter. I do not know whether it will deal with the parliamentary calendar but, even if she cannot divulge in advance what the report is going to say, it would be extremely helpful to know as soon as possible that any changes to the parliamentary calendar—we are not here to argue whether there should be any—will not be put into practice before next year at the earliest, so that the planned works can go ahead as planned in this summer recess.
Once again, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise these three issues in the House.

Mr. John Grogan: I want to bring to the House's attention the advisory committee report—the Gordon committee report—on listed sporting events to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has promised a response soon after Easter. If implemented, the report would, among other things, threaten the future live coverage of domestic test cricket and future football world cup tournaments on terrestrial television.
It is my central contention that the Gordon committee report is a tremendous lost opportunity and that there are alternatives. Let us take a random example. Australia, the land of Mr. Murdoch's birth, passed a broadcasting Act—the anti-siphoning Act—in 1992. It lists 42 national and international sporting events which must by law first be offered to terrestrial television before being offered to subscription or pay television. That includes all Australia's international cricket, football and rugby matches, at home and abroad. Interestingly, it also includes our own FA cup final.
Down under, it is realised that it is not enough to nurture today's sporting champions in sporting academies, important though that is. It is also important to inspire future generations of sportsmen and women by ensuring widespread access to great international and national sporting events on terrestrial television.
If test cricket is de-listed in this country, we could find ourselves in an absurd situation. The next time that, for example, England wins the Ashes by beating Australia at, say, Headingley, there is no guarantee that the residents of Leeds will be able to watch that historic occasion live on terrestrial television. The residents of Sydney, if they so chose, would be able to sit up through the night and watch their team take a pasting.
It is live action that quickens the pulse. It is live sporting action on terrestrial television, available to all, that creates a great shared experience. Recorded highlights are important, and the Gordon committee has something to say about them, but they are essentially second best. They do not have the immediacy and do not give a sense of being there. Indeed, they are not watched. Other than "Match of the Day", recorded sporting highlights have minuscule viewing figures.
I shall highlight the effect that the Gordon committee might have on just two or three sports if its report is implemented. Let us first consider just two of the Gordon committee's arguments for de-listing domestic test cricket. The first is that terrestrial television services cannot or should not cover lengthy sporting events in full. I would contend that that is a judgment not for the Gordon committee or, indeed, for Parliament, but for the broadcasters themselves. In fact, terrestrial television broadcasters have a long history of covering these events in full. It is up to them to make the necessary judgment.
The second argument that the Gordon committee advances in favour of de-listing test cricket is that it is not a shared point in the national calendar, which is one of the criteria for listed events which the Government laid down for the Gordon committee.
By its very nature, cricket is an event that builds up over time. It operates at a civilised pace, and a test series is an integral whole. For example, no one could argue that


Botham's century at, I think, Headingley in the 1980s, which turned around the test series at that time, was not a unique point in the national calendar. It is something that people enjoyed and to which they look back, but it built up over time. There was a dynamic in that test series. Some people say that some test matches should be listed and others should not.
Had the English Test and County Cricket Board had its way, and had only the Lord's test match been listed because it was, in the board's view, a "society event", terrestrial television viewers could have seen England lose heavily at Lord's, but would have missed the unique moment at Headingley, which would be absurd. I do not think that the argument about a shared point stands up.
It is important to remember that pensioners in particular watch cricket test matches on television. Half of all people over 65 tune in at some point over the summer.
No one is suggesting that these events should be given away by the sporting bodies. There is a regulatory mechanism in operation. The Broadcasting Act 1996 gave the Independent Television Commission the responsibility, if necessary, to decide fair prices for these events.
If we de-list, the immediate effect would probably be that some test matches would stay on terrestrial television, but others would not. However, terrestrial television and its viewers would definitely get second best, as they have done with next year's cricket world cup. The England and Wales Cricket Board sold the primary rights to Sky, and the BBC had to negotiate for secondary rights. Most of England's games in the cricket world cup next year will not be on terrestrial television, even though the event is in England.
That brings me to football. We are all making cross-party efforts to bring the 2006 football world cup to England. If the Gordon committee report is accepted, as few as five or six games may be broadcast live on terrestrial television—the final, the semi-finals and the games featuring the home nations, those being shown only in those home nations.
The broadcasting rights for that world cup have already been sold to a German media entrepreneur, Mr. Kirsch—it is the first time that the European Broadcasting Union has lost the rights to the world cup—and Mr. Kirsch is on record as saying that he will sell all he can to the highest bidder. The domestic political row that would erupt if few games could be shown on British terrestrial television, despite the large sums of public money that would no doubt go into the bid, would dwarf the current row in France about tickets for this year's world cup tournament.
It is worth remembering that the Gordon committee says that Scottish games should necessarily be shown live only in Scotland, so if—as is also the case in a few weeks' time—Scotland played Brazil in the 2006 world cup, that game would be shown live in Scotland, but not necessarily in England. I do not think that Scots living in England would take too kindly to that, and there would probably be massive cross-border movements that weekend. If we accept the Gordon committee report in respect of the football world cup, the only people who will be better off are Mr. Kirsch, who holds the broadcasting rights, and those—presumably satellite television companies—to whom he sells the rights.
Finally, there is rugby, which was completely neglected by the Gordon committee report. This year is the first that some of the five nations matches have not been available on terrestrial television and the viewing figures have plummeted. At the very least, the committee should have considered listing the rugby world cup. The committee insulted the game of rugby league: the rugby league authorities asked for the challenge cup final to be listed, but the Gordon committee dismissed their views and said that rugby league was not significant, except in a few parts of the country. I remind the committee that the London Broncos were in the semi-finals of the rugby league challenge cup final only a few weeks ago, so a London team might have been playing in the final.
In summary, there are three reasons why the Government should turn down the Gordon committee report. First, the report ignores the views of viewers and those of the sporting grass roots. Secondly, we are dealing with monopoly suppliers—there is only one test series and one world cup. Monopolies cannot be trusted, and have to be tightly regulated in the public interest. Thirdly, massive sums of public money are at stake: over the past three years, cricket has received £50 million from the lottery and a great deal of money is going into the world cup. It is remarkable that the Gordon committee chose not to list live coverage of the Commonwealth games, given that £100 million is going into the Commonwealth games to be held in Manchester in 2002.
I have received many letters on this subject, so I shall end my speech by quoting from one, from the secretary of Bishopthorpe cricket club in my constituency, Andrew Copeland. He speaks for many ordinary cricket clubs in this country when he says:
Bishopthorpe Cricket Club are unanimously against any removal of International Cricket from listed status. We believe that at a time where organisations like Bishopthorpe CC, the local sports authorities and the government should be encouraging the next generation to be more sports orientated that attempts to boost viewing figures should be made, not reduce them. Instead we seem to allow simple commercial pressures to dictate the situation and the result is that only a privileged few can view these events.
We have a Government of the many, not the few, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when he makes his decision, to kick the Gordon committee report into touch.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: There are several topics relating to my county of Kent that the House should address before it adjourns, but I shall deal briefly with only a handful.
First, there is the channel tunnel rail link. I have no qualms about returning to that essential matter at a time when the Government are seriously considering what should be done. There is a powerful argument that the economic case for the link has not been made and that it should be done away with altogether. That would delight my constituents, who have to bear the costs of blight and construction disruption. However, if we are to go ahead with the link, for goodness' sake, let us build it as it was decided by Parliament, in total, now.
The idea that the link should be built in bits, starting with the bit that is least needed—the section passing through Kent—and putting on hold indefinitely the bit that goes through London, is totally absurd. Almost as absurd is the notion that we should return to British Rail's


discredited proposal that the line should turn left and go into Waterloo. If there is a justification for the channel tunnel rail link, it is that it would link the rest of the United Kingdom to the channel, so to accept the proposal that it should turn into Waterloo—again, for an indefinite period—while east London continues to suffer interminable blight is absolutely out of the question.
I am deeply concerned by what I understand is the current activity of Railtrack, which is going around parishes in Kent re-examining the evidence given to the Select Committees in an attempt to discredit that evidence, so that environmental safeguards can be thrown out of the window, which would be absolutely disgraceful. Ministers have assured us that, if the link goes ahead, the environmental safeguards decreed by Parliament will be honoured in full, so any attempt to do the opposite would be both discreditable and in contempt of the House.
Secondly, my county is suffering to a wholly unreasonable extent from the astonishing gap between the duty on liquor and tobacco in Britain and that levied across the channel. Constant representations to the Conservative Government on this matter failed, but the problem is becoming worse and the gap is widening. As we foretold, it has become an outrageous invitation to crime: crime relating to the smuggling of liquor and tobacco is increasing all the time, and the police are aware that gangs are moving in and becoming increasingly violent. There is something extraordinary about a Government who are committed to reducing crime but whose policy is, in fact, encouraging it.
I am especially glad that my local brewer, Shepherd Neame, whose action was thrown out at an earlier hearing at the insistence of the Solicitor-General and which was refused leave to appeal, has now been given such leave, largely thanks to the sophisticated intervention of the company's barrister at the short judicial hearing, one Cherie Booth.
I hope that the Government will address this enormous threat to Kent jobs and Kent security before the problem worsens. It is all very well to say that people benefit from the opportunity to import cheap liquor, but the same people will be deeply upset if their village pub dies because it cannot compete with an increasingly dishonest trade.
Thirdly, I wish to raise the question of the fruit industry. I have more acreage under top fruit and soft fruit than any other constituency Member of Parliament, but I know that people sometimes forget what an enormous industry the fruit industry is. In Kent, there are growers whose wages bill exceeds £1 million a year, and that sort of injection into the local economy is indispensable, yet the fruit industry receives no Government subsidy. It would be easy to grub out all the trees or remove all the strawberry plants and grow instead some heavily subsidised grain crop, which gave no local employment whatever.
The issue I urge the Leader of the House to take seriously is one that I have raised with the Secretary of State for Social Security. Fruit pickers are becoming almost impossible to get because the interaction between benefits entitlement and the wages of seasonal workers has become so complex. Many of the workers were housewives, who delivered their children to school and were happy to earn considerable sums by picking for

several hours before going away to collect their children. It has become impossible for them to take on the work because, if they are on any form of benefit, such as housing benefit, they not only lose it but cannot get back on to it. That is an important issue. The industry provides employment that is particularly valued by a large number of permanent and part-time workers and is worth many millions of pounds.
Finally, the reconfiguration of hospitals is another tremendously important issue in my constituency. The town of Faversham is particularly at risk from East Kent health authority's proposal to downgrade Kent and Canterbury hospital. More than anything else, we need an assurance from Ministers that, when the issue reaches them for consideration, as it surely will, they will give access to hospital care its proper place in the hierarchy of importance. Many studies have shown that the ability of families and parents to visit children, or families and friends to visit sick relatives, enormously assists the curative process. Sometimes, the fascination with high-tech machinery and specialist medicine has caused us to play down the enormous importance of accessibility. I hope that we can have some reassurance on that issue above all.

Mr. John Cryer: Like most hon. Members, I want principally to raise a constituency issue, which is road safety, particularly for children going to and from school. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) introduced the Home Zones Bill a few weeks ago to create zones in which pedestrians have priority over vehicles and in which the speed limit would be cut to 10 mph, which is a good thing.
I shall draw on a few statistics. In 1971, 70 per cent. of children aged seven walked to school. By 1990, that percentage had dropped to less than 10 per cent. The United Kingdom has probably the worst record in western Europe on child pedestrian accidents, many of which occur while children are going to and from school, and one in five peak-time journeys in this country are undertaken by drivers taking children to or from school.
I have become involved with two primary schools in my constituency that are trying to get pedestrian crossings built outside them. Ayloff's junior school is on the busy Southend road and has a fairly ineffective zebra crossing. I know from my experience that it is dangerous, as I was nearly knocked over on it during the election campaign. Perhaps my opponent was driving the car, but in any case I nearly came off the worst in the encounter. Scargill's junior school is also in my constituency—[Laughter.] I thought that that would go down well. The school has initiated a powerful local campaign to have a pelican crossing built outside it, as there have been a number of near misses.
The problem is that councils lack the resources and have to satisfy many criteria before they can build a crossing. Many councils, not merely Hornchurch and Rainham in my constituency but councils throughout the country, say that there must first be an accident—in some cases, a death—before they can build a crossing. Surely the argument should be that we should have crossings on busy roads before there are accidents and before children are hit by cars and, in my constituency, by lorries. Many heavy goods vehicles go through Rainham in the south of the constituency and many children are exposed to risk going to and from school.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is to enable councils to reduce the 30-mph speed limit in built-up areas to 20 mph without reference to central Government. That is an important step—or will be when it is introduced. That brings me to my fundamental point, which is that we must aim to make our streets safe again for children—I am sure that that is what the Government would like to aim for—so that they are not in danger from traffic.
The newspapers are full of news about paedophiles being released into the community, which is of understandable concern to many people. Children are at far greater risk of being knocked over by a car or truck than of being attacked by a stranger, yet we do not seem to have as emotional a response when a child is hit by half a tonne of flying metal. I would have said that that was something to get upset about. Clearly, parents who have been through that are emotional about it and think of road safety as an important issue, but people often get involved only when they are directly affected. I want that to change.
Local authorities need more resources for crossings, traffic calming and other measures that would make streets safer, particularly in constituencies such as mine. My local council of Havering can afford only a handful of traffic-calming schemes and crossings a year, and those usually result from deaths or injuries on the road. I also want some other changes, all of which would mean more investment and resources. That is crucial. We will not get change without more investment, and I want central Government to invest directly through local authorities in traffic-calming measures and new crossings.
I also want a return to the "fares fair" policy practised by the old Greater London Council. Perhaps the new Greater London Authority could introduce such a scheme under the new strategic transport authority. Under the "fares fair" policy 12 years ago, in a large part of London between 9 am and 10 am, roads that are now clogged were almost empty of traffic, apart from buses. That was far safer and far more sensible. It also made it far easier for people who did not have much money to get about or go across London, into the west end, central London or wherever.
We have to convince parents that children should walk or cycle to school, and many schemes are now in place. Sustrans—a civil engineering, pro-cycling charity—is involved in schemes with 10 local authorities and their schools to pioneer encouraging children to cycle to school, and I am told that it has made a big impact in a large part of the country, and in York and Leeds in particular.
Traffic control must be made a higher priority for the police. In my area, they have been involved in a number of exercises to crack down on illegal parking outside schools, which is an extremely dangerous practice. We must make traffic control a much higher priority for the police nationally, and provide the manpower on the street to deal with it.
Finally, on an international issue, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made an extraordinary speech. Essentially, he gave us a rationale for telling the European Commission to get lost and stick its economic policies, and for our pursuing our own micro-economic policies.
After a terrific speech about manufacturing industry, and textiles in particular, he then concluded that the Commission was a wonderful thing and that we should stick by it. If I live to be 150, I will never understand the mentality of the Liberals, who mount such terrific attacks and critiques of the European Union only to end up saying that it is a great and wonderful institution, and that we should stick with it.
A large number of Tory Members went along with the Maastricht treaty—one or two of them even negotiated it. They went along with it, supported it, signed it and voted for it—this incredible, right-wing, Euromonetarist stream of poison that we are having to live with—and now they hold up their hands and say, "It's nothing to do with us. We are all opposed to it." The news of which Conservative Members are perhaps unaware is that the time to oppose a treaty—or tear it up, which I would have done—is before it is signed. It is a little late to start wringing one's hands afterwards and saying, "It's a terrible thing; I am sorry we signed it, but we were duped," which is what former Prime Minister Mrs. Thatcher seemed to say about the Single European Act.
In the early 1970s, we were taken into the European Union by the Conservative Government without any mandate from the people. It took a Labour Government to hold a referendum. Those who campaigned against membership undoubtedly lost that referendum because Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, decided at the last minute to support the Common Market, as it was then. According to the Government's publication "Britain's New Deal in Europe", that U-turn was based on a number of promises—principally that there would be no European exchange rate mechanism, so there would be no threat to jobs, and, secondly, that we would have a veto over any policies that we did not like.
Those two elements have both gone out of the window. We have had the ERM disaster and we are heading towards a single currency, and Mrs. Thatcher signed away the veto in the Single European Act, something which I shall never understand in a million years. She now tries to claim that she had nothing to do with that, which is extraordinary.
The EU is an entirely anti-democratic institution, in which there is little or no accountability. Certainly in the European Commission there is no accountability. It has no register of interests. At least the House has a Register of Members' Interests in which Members have to record their relevant interests. Commissioners and their staff can be wined and dined by big business and given all sorts of freebies, but there is no record of that. In the end, that can influence policy. Directives which fly out of Brussels are the product of lobbying by big business. The idea that the EU is based on some sort of democratic ideal of a united Europe is nonsense. It is propaganda from beginning to end.
I am not a little Englander; I am an internationalist. That is why I oppose the single currency and the EU. I am glad that the Government are committed to holding a referendum within the next five years, but I should like to see it held now. If that happened, unlike 20 years ago, the noes would win.

Mr. David Amess: I have four brief points to raise before the House adjourns for the Easter recess. The first concerns solicitors. The House is full of solicitors and I have many friends who are solicitors. We all know that they like self-regulation. But I have been disappointed by the procedures in place to examine complaints against them.
One particular case with which I have been dealing has been going on for more than two years. I reported it to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, which is now the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. It has gone from there to the ombudsman on three occasions. The ombudsman has disagreed with what the original body had to say and, at the end of it all, nothing has been achieved. Therefore, I, as a layman, am against self-regulation for solicitors.
My second point concerns the regulations governing the safe carrying of cargo on lorries. I have had many complaints about the sort of goods that are carried on lorries on the A13 and the A127 in my constituency, all of which I have taken seriously. I had not expected to be the victim of a near-fatal accident this week, which would have caused a by-election—about which no doubt some would have been pleased.
I was on my way to visit someone in hospital and I was driving behind a huge lorry carrying a vast amount of timber. With no warning at all, a great wooden support flew off the top, coming towards my windscreen like an arrow. I thought that my time was up and that I was about to meet my maker. The object met the centre of force, which I am big-headed enough to claim might have been me, but instead of going through the windscreen, it bounced on top of the car. I gave chase, but the huge articulated lorry did not stop. I eventually got its number and am dealing with the matter.
Having examined the regulations governing the carrying of loads by lorries, I do not believe that the law is satisfactory. Given what the Labour party has done to the value of the pound, these are tough times and we need more exports, and I have no desire to do lorries out of any work, but as a near victim I think that we must be much more careful in securing loads.
My third point concerns education, particularly with regard to Essex county council and Southend borough council. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said about the Conservatives who have run Essex county council since 1 April, but he is not giving the House the full picture. I had a meeting with the new administration last night, and the Labour and Liberal parties should be thoroughly ashamed of the way in which they have left the council's finances.
Matters are even worse than that, however. The hon. Gentleman should not hark back only to 1 April and Conservative control. His row must be with his own Government. As a result of what happened on 1 April, the council had a pernicious settlement, and all sorts of cuts have had to be inflicted on the good people, which is certainly not what the Conservatives want.
For example, the Labour Government gave the council extra money for education but cut funding for other matters. It received only a half percentage point increase, much lower than the rate of inflation. The Conservatives are in a difficult situation. I rejoice on behalf of Southend because its primary schools will receive 13.6 per cent. more in cash than last year, as compared with 5.7 per cent. for Essex county council.
The School Standards and Framework Bill is causing havoc in my constituency. I am inundated with representations. There are three grammar schools in my constituency of Southend, West and one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). The regulations for the ballots of local residents, if they go forward, are a disgrace.
For example, Southend would have an electorate of 50,000, whereas other areas, such as Chelmsford and Colchester, would have much smaller electorates of fewer than 10,000. The ramifications are obvious. Grammar schools in Southend offer places to 24 per cent. of local children, constituting a far less selective intake and catering for a far wider socio-economic background than the super-selective schools in Chelmsford and Colchester, although I have nothing against them.
My schools are worried about their settlements. Many are grant-maintained. A wonderful special school, St. Christopher's, has a substantial amount of lottery funding, about which I am pleased. But my grant- maintained schools are worried about how money will be allocated in future.
Moreover, the idea that the abolition of the assisted places scheme will result in the reduction of class sizes in my constituency is nonsense. Since we have had a Labour Government, all classes have grown in size. Westborough school has 800 children in its primary school.
My final point concerns Parliament. I have listened carefully to what has been said about the BBC, but hon. Members should open their eyes to what is happening. The Leader of the House had a brief exchange with me on the matter on Monday, but since 1 May the House of Commons is being destroyed. That is why our proceedings are not being reported. We no longer have a Prime Minister; we have a President. Every Wednesday we have a presidential address lasting half an hour. I have never heard such sycophantic questions in all my life as those put by Labour Members, who say, "The sun is shining, Oh Great One. It is marvellous and it is all thanks to the Labour Government."
What is going on is ridiculous. We have the youngest Prime Minister this century, yet his voting record so far is 5 per cent. That compares with 30 per cent. for my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven. The Leader of the House argued that the Prime Minister has many important duties. His two predecessors were under enormous pressure with equally important matters to attend to, but they thought that this place was important and they came here to vote regularly. What is going on is a disgrace.
In addition, there is the problem of the behaviour of some Ministers. In particular, I mention those from the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A number of Ministers—not all—who leap to the Dispatch Box are insulting in what they say. When it comes to correspondence, Ministers are now too grand even to sign their own letters. They "pp" letters all the time and fudge answers to questions. They are very discourteous. We have always used first names in correspondence in the House, but they now use surnames and sign the letter, "Yours sincerely".
Is it any wonder that correspondents feel that our deliberations are no longer worth reporting? We have destroyed the United Kingdom and will end up with an


English Parliament. It is all the fault of the Labour party. Since 1 May last year, it has set about destroying this Parliament, which is the centre of the greatest democracy in the world.
The Government report matters outside the House before giving us the courtesy of reporting them here. That was demonstrated by the deliberate leaking and over-egging of the Budget. I hope that we will hear no more nonsense about a lack of reporting. The answer is in the hands of the Labour party, and I hope that it will begin to take the Chamber seriously again.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has left me very little time. I agree with his first point about solicitors. The legal profession is shot through with any number of restrictive practices and it is one of the last great institutions crying out for reform. In the few minutes left to me I want to deal with that matter, specifically the selection of Queen's Counsel and other judicial appointments.
Before the election, the Labour party said that it would take a sledgehammer to the legal profession. In a document published in 1995 entitled "Access to Justice", we said:
An incoming Labour government will formally refer the legal profession to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission … so that existing structure and practices can be tested by reference to their ability to meet consumer needs.
We have a packed legislative programme and I do not criticise the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor for putting this on the back burner, but at some stage it must be brought forward. We cannot allow the legal profession to regulate itself; it is very much against the public interest.
Tomorrow, Maundy Thursday, 50 or so barristers will be celebrating. It will be jackpot day for them because they will have been appointed QCs. With that appointment, they will enjoy an immediate elevation in status, stratospheric earning powers and a distinction to which many of them may not be entitled. I say that because the manner in which QCs are appointed is obscure; it is not transparent and depends upon informal soundings taken from senior members of the judiciary, senior academics and so on. It is impossible for lay people such as myself or other members of the legal profession to understand fully why some people are preferred and others are not.
The greatest number of applications made in the past 10 years by one individual, who was subsequently successful, was 15. One can only sit one's driving test five times and take one's degree once—perhaps it is twice now. One cannot sit A-levels 15 times. It is astonishing. The highest number of unsuccessful applications is 25, but the Lord Chancellor is not prepared to put a cap on it. He is relying on informal soundings from the judiciary. I would find it more encouraging if, having asked for those informal soundings, he got a 100 per cent. response rate. In fact, 37 per cent. of the senior judges could not be bothered to reply. When I asked the Lord Chancellor about that, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), who understood my concern, said that there were no plans to urge a higher response rate.
When the QCs come to the House of Lords, as they will, to get their letters patent—I believe that that is what they are called—they undergo an investiture ceremony. They are all kitted out in a costume which consists of
buckled patent leather shoes, silk stockings, breeches, a gown, lace around the wrist, white gloves and a shoulder length bell bottomed wig.
As the Lord Chancellor gives the new QC the grand patent of precedence as one of Her Majesty's counsel, he says:
To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting. Know Ye that We of Our especial grace have constituted, ordained and appointed our trusty and well beloved
Joe Bloggs, or whoever
one of our Counsel learned in the Law.
Once a QC, always a QC. It is an indefensible system.
In yesterday's edition of The Lawyer, which is in the Library, there are four pages criticising the system. Peter Reeves from the Adam Smith Institute published a compelling pamphlet on the system entitled: "Silk cut are Queen's Counsel necessary?"
He is against the continuation of the institution and calls for a free market in the law and a unified legal profession where those who are skilled in advocacy or in a particular area of the law will be recognised as skilled practitioners by the market, which is what happens in every other sphere of life. We do not have Queen's architects, dentists or shoemakers, but we have Queen's counsel. It is a restrictive practice that should be done away with.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has obviously not heard of the royal warrant.
It is always a pleasure to take part in this debate because it gives hon. Members an opportunity to let the bees out of their bonnets. This morning we have had 17 speeches covering a wide variety of topics. I am delighted that most of those who contributed to the debate have heeded the remarks by the Modernisation Committee and are present in the Chamber for the reply. It is not inappropriate, in view of the presence of the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons to say that I was particularly glad that the last report of that Committee stressed the importance of hon. Members being in the Chamber if they have contributed to a debate. I hope that those who are not here—unless they have a good reason—will make every effort to be here in future to hear the reply to the debate.
We have covered a range of topics. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) began by talking about the scourge of chlamydia and the need for the Government to take action. Everything she said was entirely reasonable and right. I am sure that she will agree with me, as I am agreeing with her, that one would hope that young people in this country would begin to exercise a little more restraint in sexual practices, because the one sure way of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases is not to engage in promiscuous conduct.
We had two speeches on rate capping in Derbyshire; one in the inimitable style of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and one from my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). They had slightly differing views on the issue, but they were united in believing that it was regrettable that the


Government took the action that they did. The hon. Member for Bolsover believes that it is still in the balance, and I trust that he is right. He agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire that it would be a waste of money to re-bill the electors of Derbyshire at a cost of, as I understand it, £500,000.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke with force and fervour about the anti-dumping levy on unbleached cotton, not a subject on which I was previously well rehearsed. He made a good case. However, there was a certain ambivalence in his conclusion when this champion of the European Commission, having castigated its action, said what a wonderful group it was.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about school transport in Essex; my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) later gave a slightly corrective interpretation of that account. I cannot pretend to be an expert in Essex politics, but I agree that it is important that those who live in rural areas, especially children who go to denominational schools, should not be placed at a disadvantage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made an almost musical plea for the Bournemouth symphony orchestra. As one who has heard that orchestra and knows of its professional excellence and something of its wonderful work, I totally endorse his plea.
I also endorse the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who spoke about the need for the Ministry of Defence to offer redundant equipment to museums before consigning it to scrap. He made an extremely powerful case for the museum at Priddy's Hard—I hope that Ministers will heed that, and that the right hon. Lady will be able to refer to it when she winds up.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) made a plea for a bypass for Ashby. All those who know that historic town will realise that a bypass could bring great benefits and relief, as has happened in other cases. I hope that the Government will listen to what he said.
I also hope that they will listen to the consistently powerful plea by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for industrial workers, particularly quarrymen, who have emphysema. He has a worthy track record in the House, and I was extremely sad to hear him suggest that this might be his last Parliament. Perhaps he aspires to be the Prime Minister of Wales, or whatever that creature will be called in the assembly. I cannot wish him luck, but I can say that I have enjoyed his company and that I shall personally be delighted if he stays here for many more years. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a local plea, but, as he is no longer here, I shall not refer to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) made an extremely important point about the failure of the Foreign Secretary to make a statement following his recent very important tour of the middle east. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made a most interesting point of order on this matter. In her response, Madam Speaker made it plain that a change of policy was not necessary for a proper report to be made on a foreign tour of great importance. I hope that that will

be the last time that our Foreign Secretary, who represents us all, will return from a foreign tour without addressing Parliament.
I should add at this point that I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West referred to the disturbing tendency of Ministers to seem to neglect the House. Nobody can criticise the Prime Minister for not being here today, and I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in wishing him well in his important work in Northern Ireland—we are all most anxious to see a just settlement there. I am disappointed, however, that he spends far less time listening to speeches in the Chamber and voting than any of his predecessors not only in my 28 years as a Member of Parliament, but, I believe, in this century. All parliamentarians—the hon. Member for Bolsover is one par excellence—must share that view.
The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) made an interesting speech about the broadcasting of sporting events. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) seemed to want the channel tunnel to be filled in, but, accepting that that was not likely to happen, he made a powerful and cogent plea that the link be built properly and immediately. He talked about fruit and hospitals—perhaps there is a connection.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) spoke interestingly about road safety. I should say how good it is to see his mother, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), next to him on the Bench. It is almost four years since Bob Cryer died so tragically, and we all still very much miss him—it is good to have two members of the family here today. In the hon. Gentleman's remarks on Europe, he showed that he was a chip off the old block, as I have said before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West then gave a robust omnibus speech, such as he typically makes in these debates.
Five hon. Members, I think, talked about the BBC. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is a considerable parliamentarian, made the BBC the sole subject of her most powerful speech. I know that there is concern throughout the House about the cavalier attitude of the chairman and governors of the BBC. Many of us believe that the BBC is violating the spirit of its charter in deliberately reducing its audience for a public sector aspect of its work that is specifically mentioned in that charter—broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament.
The way in which the BBC treated Madam Speaker's letter to the chairman was particularly discourteous. The letter, which she sent on Monday, is in the Library for all hon. Members to see. She wrote:
on your own admission, the transfer of Yesterday in Parliament to Long Wave only is likely to halve its audience and the move of The Week in Westminster from Saturday morning to Thursday evening will cut its audience from 700,000 to 300,000. It is difficult to reconcile this reality with the rhetoric of your commitment.
As I said to you on 17 March, my concern is that the BBC is overlooking its duty as a public service broadcaster to educate as well as to entertain, is marginalising parliamentary broadcasting and is in effect seeking to withdraw from its commitment to the democratic process.
Those are powerful words, and I think that Madam Speaker fulfilled her historic role in so speaking for the House. I hope that, even at this late stage, the chairman—with whom I shall be having lunch in about half an hour—will listen to what she said, as what the BBC is doing is not good enough.


As the hon. Member for Bolsover said, many hon. Members—including him and me—have supported the BBC through thick and thin and have taken pride in it. I agree that the BBC now seems to pander to the lowest common denominator. As he said, it cannot take its support in Parliament for granted. The BBC would be ill advised to assume that, when licences are discussed and charters come up for renewal, the House will feel that it can support it in the future as it has in the past. I believe that, in saying that the BBC is in grave dereliction of its duty, I not only echo the words of Madam Speaker, but speak for all hon. Members.
We have had an interesting debate, as we always do on these occasions. It is always difficult to respond to so many speeches on so many diverse topics, and I apologise to those hon. Members whose contributions I have not adequately acknowledged, but it is important that the Leader of the House has her chance to respond—I am trying to stick to my promise on timing. I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by wishing you and the whole House a very happy Easter.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, it is difficult to reply to all the diverse points that have been raised in the debate. As he said, 17 Adjournment debates have been rolled into one. If I do not cover all the points, I shall, of course, write to hon. Members. I do not mean that as a discourtesy, nor do I complain about the number of matters that were raised, as I believe that the past two and three-quarter hours have been a very good use of parliamentary time—many individual hon. Members have been able to speak about issues either of direct concern to their constituents or of wider concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who opened the debate, talked about the impact that chlamydia can have on the lives of many women. She rightly said that there was a great deal of ignorance about the problem and that more could be done. She will know that the Department of Health has set up an expert advisory group on the matter, which will report in the near future. Ministers will consider whether to establish pilot studies, which she mentioned, and whether more work should be done on education programmes. My hon. Friend mentioned an article in a women's magazine that highlighted the problem. Such articles can serve a useful purpose in educating people about health dangers. More could be done along those lines.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) referred to the BBC and raised an issue to which I shall return. He talked also about the situation in Derbyshire. I think that he was absent from the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about Derbyshire. It might have been beneficial to the hon. Gentleman that he was absent during my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend gave a vivid account of an Adjournment debate on Derbyshire that took place some years ago. That debate was interrupted, shall we say, to put it politely. Perhaps "wrecked" would be a more accurate description. During that Adjournment debate my hon. Friend was raising the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred today.
Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman mentioned that Derbyshire county council has 28 days in which to make representations. I am sure there will be strong voices from both sides of the House on this matter. I am absolutely sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will consider the issue extremely fairly.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) raised the anti-dumping levy, an issue that he has brought to the attention of the House at business questions. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government believe that in this instance the Commission has taken an unfortunate decision. We believe that there is some evidence with regard to justification for imposing the measure but we think that insufficient account has been taken of the views of member states about the direct impact on local companies.
The United Kingdom will be doing all that it can to maintain the majority against the levy, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. There is still some way to go. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that the levy is damaging a firm in his constituency. I can give him the assurance that Ministers are well aware of the problems and are trying to raise them with the Commission as well as trying to minimise the impact that the levy will have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) talked about home-school transport in Essex, in a succinct and telling way. He described clearly the pressures that there will be on some families in his constituency. My hon. Friend also explained the change of boundaries, which is probably important for people in the area to understand. When there are changes of boundary, it sometimes takes time for people to understand the changes in control. I hope that Essex county council will listen to what my hon. Friend has to say. It is clear that some of the specific problems in some villages or with denominational schools are pertinent to his constituents. I am sure that they will be pleased that he has spoken up on their behalf.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) referred to the Bournemouth symphony orchestra. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that he had had the privilege of hearing it. I cannot make that claim, but the Government are concerned to hear that Devon county council has indicated at such short notice that it intends to withdraw its funding of £100,000. The timing of this is probably an extra problem that the orchestra has to face. I am sure that Devon county council will listen to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. He did, of course, get the opportunity to advertise for funds. He did not quite give the phone number and address to which funds should be sent, but he certainly made the plea carefully.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the millennium Portsmouth harbour project. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Ministry of Defence believes that museums such as those that he mentioned have an important role to play. I know that the hon. Gentleman has written to a Minister at the MOD. I think that he can expect a reply soon. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every request will be considered sympathetically. If the Ministry can help, I am sure that that help will be forthcoming.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) drew attention to the bypass on the A511 that he wants. I think that the A15 and the A511 come together in his constituency. My hon. Friend will know that this is a scheme for which Leicestershire county council is the highway authority. The council has indicated an intention to start works in 1999. Any bid for Government support for the scheme will be considered following the submission, which will not be until July. I cannot comment in more specific detail on the application for the bypass.
My hon. Friend's points about the impact on local people were well made. It is a fact that road problems can have an effect on children going to school, on local employment and on issues such as tourism and buildings in Ashby. My hon. Friend raised some important points.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the important issue of compensation for quarrymen and gave a graphic description of the problems that have arisen. The right hon. Gentleman's real concern was evident in what he said. I know that Ministers are aware of the problems, and I will ensure that they know that the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the matter today.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) raised the issues that I think he hoped to raise at Question Time yesterday. He found that he could wind them into this debate. I make no complaint about that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered the question—I thought reasonably—why there was no statement after the middle east visit. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire echoed the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is not possible to make a statement on every occasion. I think that we must rely on the judgment of Ministers, if there has not been a change of policy, when it is wise to make a statement and when it is not.
I think that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet wanted to raise the question of Cyprus yesterday. We welcome the opening of the Cyprus-European Union accession negotiations. We are hoping that rapid progress can be made, but that is obviously dependent on certain conditions. The hon. Gentleman referred also to Syria. I shall pass his "supplementary" on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary so that he gets the extra information that he wants.
Speaking on behalf of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works, the hon. Gentleman talked about recesses. I shall be as forthcoming as I can about recess dates. However, he will understand that this is a very busy Session. I shall bear in mind his point about the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) talked about listed sporting events. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is involved in widespread consultations and has met Ministers. I am sure that many have been lobbied on sports such as cricket being included in the list. My hon. Friend's point has been well made.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) spoke about the channel tunnel rail link. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my right

hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has kept the House well informed of what has been happening. The link is important and work is going ahead as a matter of urgency to try to resolve the situation, which clearly affects the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others. My right hon. Friend made a statement as soon as the crisis arose, and I think that he should be commended for that. He is clearly working extremely hard to get answers.
As for beer-running and Customs and Excise, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent will know that we reversed some of the cuts in Customs and Excise officer numbers. Putting that to one side, we want to crack down on alcohol and tobacco fraud and smuggling. There will be some announcements later in the year on other things that could happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) referred to road safety. I think that we all realise that a vicious circle often arises when parents are too frightened to send their children to school on their own—that is walking to school—and therefore use their cars to take them, which puts more cars on the road. My hon. Friend raised a serious issue that concerns many people.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) raised a series of issues, some of which affect his constituents; others were of a wider nature. I refute what he said about attitudes to Parliament. I was pleased that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said that it was right that the Prime Minister should be in Ireland today. I hope that that is something on which we can all agree.
On the BBC, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke about the letter that the Speaker had written, and, indeed, the attitude of the whole House on this issue. My hon. Friend's speech probably united everybody in the Chamber. It was forceful, which is what I would expect from her. I am sure that all of us would want to review the arrangements and monitor them ourselves. The BBC has said that it will review the matter in 12 months, but for many hon. Members, that might be too long to wait. The House will ask questions of the BBC about how many people listen to these programmes. I personally—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject of the next debate is of particular importance to hon. Members from constituencies throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly from Wales. Two or three infantry divisions are under threat. We should have more time in which to debate that issue. Many hon. Members from throughout—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must know that. He is in fact taking time out of the limited amount that is available. It is the hon. Gentleman who secured the Adjournment debate who has the privilege of leading it.

Territorial Army

Mr. Julian Brazier: The number of right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have taken the trouble on the last day of term to be in their places demonstrates the strength of concern felt on this subject. I am grateful to the Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I have the highest respect, who will respond to the debate.
The Territorial Army faces a double threat: on the one hand, a cut of more than half its combat elements; on the other, an insidious move to becoming a mere support organisation for the Regular Army. Such a move would destroy its ethos and its attractions to good-quality people. Ironically, it would also reduce its ability to provide the very reinforcements that the Regular Army needs in peacetime in places such as Bosnia.
What is at stake is no less than the purpose and capability of our defence forces as a whole. Infantry, armour, artillery and combat engineer units cannot be quickly rebuilt. Unlike doctors or technicians, they have no counterparts in civilian life.
I resigned as a parliamentary private secretary and signed up to a demand for a proper strategic defence review. I would have been the very first Member of Parliament to welcome such a review if it had been carried out in the same open-minded way in which others were carried out. Other countries have recognised that, with smaller professional forces, volunteer reserve units can replace capacity in a less costly fashion than their regular counterparts. The cost today of a volunteer reserve unit is typically around a fifth of its regular counterparts. That is why our English-speaking cousins, the other main non-conscript countries—America, Canada and Australia—have all chosen to keep a volunteer reserve force, excluding regular reservists, equal to or larger than their regular armies.
In America, in December, six of the 15 higher readiness National Guard brigades began forming two divisions deployable at just 90 days readiness. In Australia, the Seventh Field Force, one of many largely territorial brigades, is being prepared for overseas projection at just 90 days' readiness, with the extra resources that it will need for that. Yet in Britain, with our TA already down to less than half the strength of our Regular Army, further cuts are planned.
The second threat is equally insidious: a change of philosophy, transforming the TA from an army-in-waiting into an organisation with a mere augmentation and support role for the Regular Army. Such an organisation exists in the United States—the US Army Reserve, which works in parallel with the National Guard. Although the US National Guard, with its formed regiments and brigades, with its fighting spirit and local connections, has the lowest wastage in the English-speaking world—the Australians come a close second—the US Army Reserve, whose units have a support and augmentation philosophy, has the worst, at a miserable 37 per cent. That is what our planners seem to want over here.
We do not have to look across the Atlantic. The Navy has already emasculated the Royal Naval Reserve. There was a letter in The Times on Saturday from a regular naval officer, arrogantly putting down a letter from someone

who was ex-RNR, and saying how pleased the new RNR should be to have no ships and simply fill berths in regular naval vessels. What he did not say was that the RNR is now the worst-recruited part of the reserve forces and is unable to match its pathetically small new target establishment. It is appropriate that the chiefs of staff should have selected an admiral to head the relevant tri-service working party.
Time and again, volunteer reserve units have proved their worth when we sorely needed them, from the Queen Victoria Rifles, whose heroic defence of Calais when the Army was withdrawing from Dunkirk won extremely rare praise from the German high command that they were fighting, to 1990, when the National Guard Artillery Brigade, which was located next to our division in the Gulf, was commented on by our own Brigadier Hammerbeck. He said, "My God. I shall never forget their first bombardment. The enemy commander told me he'd lost 90 per cent. of his forces in the first few minutes." The highest scoring allied forces armoured unit in that campaign was the 4th US Marine Reserve Tank Battalion, commanded by a volunteer reservist. These units cost the American taxpayer a fraction of the price of their regular counterparts, which releases money for vital equipment procurement.
British TA units, such as the splendid 5 PWRR in my constituency, could do it too, if they were given the modest extra resources to raise their readiness state; indeed, many of them did so in the last war.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman associate the Yorkshire and Humberside Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association with his remarks concerning the unit in his constituency?

Mr. Brazier: I am delighted to do so, and to mention the proud record of Yorkshire, north-eastern regiments and regiments throughout the country, too.
Does the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, really believe the message that he is being given by his officials in the Ministry of Defence: that British reservists are so inferior to their American and Australian counterparts that they are unable to provide proper fighting units and formations at sensible levels of readiness? He will be fully aware of how heavily infantry units in Bosnia rely on reservists. He must also be concerned that we face a further decline in the Army's profile in the wider community as the light of the last military presence winks out in areas throughout the country with the closure of territorial and cadet premises. However, those are not my main arguments. My concern is a strategic one.
Since 1815, defence planners have told Ministers that the next war would be over in a few weeks and would involve few casualties. From our own experience, in the Crimea through to the recent Russian experience in nearby Chechnya, defence planners have been proved wrong—frequently abruptly and surprisingly. The current configuration of our Regular Army, which has been reduced to just two divisions, allows us to deploy a single division in an expeditionary force. The ability to build that into a larger force depends on the combat elements of the TA.
Ministers should have asked how we can provide stronger forces within affordable budgets by harnessing the remarkable enthusiasm in the wider community. Why


has no evaluation been done of the deployable reserve brigades that America and Australia are developing? In the struggle for resources, the truth is that regular officers have squeezed the TA out and bolted it on to the backside of its regular counterparts.
When our TA infantry and yeomanry regiments cost one fifth of their regular counterparts, how can it be cost-effective to consider reducing them to a rump? The short answer is: easily—if two conditions are met. First, there must be an all-regular higher command structure of the type unique to Britain. We do not have even one TA major general, whereas the Australians have three and the Americans have one for every state. I am proud of our professional Army; I am not so proud of the clique of regular staff officers in the Ministry of Defence. I look forward to meeting some of them at the Select Committee—if our Chairman so decides.
The second condition is that there must be a belief—our planners seem, once again, to entertain that belief—that we will not have to fight a major war for many years to come. The Falklands and the Gulf wars were both fought over open terrain in areas containing virtually no civilians, but we could get sucked into serious fighting, just as the Americans did in Vietnam and the Russians did in Afghanistan and Chechnya. It could happen in Iraq or in the Baltic region, if the latter catches fire. In that case, we will need a much larger Army, and very quickly.
We cannot be secure without a proper general reserve; it must be borne in mind that our fine Regular Army has just two divisions. In some past wars, we needed more than 80 divisions. Do the Government really want the British Army to lose its capacity to expand to fight real wars, and to become a mere peacekeeper?

Mr. Bruce George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for allowing me to intervene briefly. The fact that there are so many Members here in the early afternoon is a warning to the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence that messing around with what is left of our reserves would be difficult and dangerous. The Defence Select Committee has already had two sessions on the reserves, and will certainly have more after the publication of the strategic defence review.
We are not defensive because of nostalgia or because of an attachment to the TA units that we all regularly visit. We support the TA because we feel there is still a great need for a competent reserve to supplement our armed forces. Warfare has not changed so greatly as to render our traditional reserves superfluous; nor are they there only to plug holes left in the MoD's budget.
I would ask the Minister to use his considerable influence to ensure that, when the SDR is published, there will still be a significant role for the reserves into the 21st century, the enormous financial restraints on the MOD notwithstanding. If we find that the reserves have been relegated to superfluity, I am convinced that there will be tremendous reaction throughout the country, reflected in the House. I very much hope that that can be avoided by careful planning in the MOD.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on initiating the debate and engaging the support of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who chairs the Select Committee. I speak as a relic of dad's army, who, after that service, joined the Army proper in 1942. One lesson that I learned from my father was that this country of ours never has an army large enough to withstand a major threat. That was why Lord Haldane, in the early part of the century, introduced reforms that brought the TA under the control of the Ministry of Defence.
Even today, in the absence of any major threat, the Army finds it necessary to use the services of skilled people in the TA. I find it, therefore, all the more astonishing that we should even begin to contemplate the dumbing-down of the TA and the reduction of its role in our armed forces.
There is another damaging element in play. The danger is that we will discount the voluntary spirit and the enthusiasm and ideals of people who wish to serve their country. All those virtues are well described in the publication "South-East TAVRA". We all urge the Government to spend more money on helping young people to make their lives more worth while by finding a mission or a goal with a public service spirit. By diminishing the value of our cadet forces and the TA, we may end up diminishing the value of public service itself—not to mention the effectiveness of our armed forces. That is a double whammy if ever there was one.

Mr. John Burnett: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing this important debate at such a crucial time. The Minister will have noticed that the debate is a combined operation—all the main parties are united in their support for the combat arms of the Territorial Army. The Royal Marines, in which I was privileged to serve, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force all have minimal reserves now, but, thank goodness, the TA can still deploy large formed units of battalion strength.
The TA's combat units buttress our county regiments, which are the envy of armies throughout the world. The 4th Battalion the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment has companies in Plymouth, Exeter and Dorchester, where they are a vital aid to recruitment and to our cadet service. Their combat role, however, is the most important of all.
Infantry soldiers exist ultimately for the purpose of combat. It is the team or unit that is so desperately important; at present, we still have those units. I hope that the strategic defence review will do nothing to undermine them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should perhaps tell the House that there seems to be some misunderstanding about the rules that apply to these half-hour Adjournment debates. They are essentially for the person raising the subject and for the Minister. By special permission both of the originator of the debate and of the Minister, others may also participate for a short time. That must be determined beforehand and notified to the Chair.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I am sorry that so many hon. Members did not get a chance to speak in this short debate. I can only suggest that, if they want to congratulate the TA, they should stand up and shout out the names of their local units, which will then be recorded.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing this timely debate. He is an experienced and doughty fighter for the Territorial Army, and if anyone was to be lucky enough to secure today's debate, it should have been him.
We are lucky indeed to be able to call on the hon. Gentleman's expertise and on that of other hon. Members present in the Chamber. I have listened carefully to what has been said not just this morning but throughout the past nine months.
The hon. Member for Canterbury was less than generous in his characterisation of the review. Not even the worst enemy of the Ministry could deny that this has been the most open and consultative exercise ever carried out by the MOD. It has included seminars, panels, written and oral submissions and discussions, in the Chamber and elsewhere. The TA has been involved in meetings and providing input; the hon. Gentleman has submitted papers to us as well. Only yesterday, I met yet another delegation from the TA—I am sure that it will not be the last.
I should not like anyone to gain the impression from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Territorial Army has not been well served. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman may wish, on reflection, to retract his implication—I am sure that he will—that there has been a conspiracy in the Navy or the Regular Army. I should like to thank all the services for the way they have approached the debate. They have not tried to defend the status quo or their own services or units. They have attempted genuinely to analyse current needs and then, irrespective of the effect on their own services, to work out a coherent configuration for our defence. That has been the purpose of the review and the starting point of our approach to the Territorial Army and all other units.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid: Yes; my hon. Friend can give us the name of the unit.

Mr. Rogers: I am an ex-Regular Army and ex-Territorial Army soldier. During the review, will my hon. Friend take into account the usefulness of the cadet forces in constituencies such as mine in the valley communities? They make an enormous social contribution and are a focus for community activity.

Dr. Reid: I shall indeed; my respect for and commitment to the cadet forces is well known. I do not understand how the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) has gained the impression that we are in any way diminishing the role of the cadets—we have supported them. I should like the resources that are given to them to be increased, but we must await the outcome of the review. We must not count our chickens before they are hatched, or set up straw men.
It is unfair to suggest that reservists have been excluded from work on the reserve forces. They have participated directly in the review, and, like all other service personnel, have been free to make submissions to the review team. They are freer than any other element of our armed forces to articulate their views and lobby for their cause publicly. Notwithstanding the odd major or two, many other elements of our armed forces do not have such freedom. While I appreciate the strength of hon. Members' feelings about the Territorial Army, we should not diminish the feelings of other sections of our armed forces about the traditions, expertise and capabilities that they bring to our defence output. We asked for and accepted submissions; we sought people's views, and I am grateful to those who responded.
I stress that, at this stage, no final decisions have been made on the reserves or on any other aspect of defence. Defence Ministers have drawn conclusions, based on a wide range of advice and many months' work inside and outside my Department, and with the Foreign Office, especially on security analysis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has submitted detailed proposals to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet colleagues for collective decision. I am confident that the outcome will be good for the reserve forces, as well as for the armed forces as a whole and for the nation.
I shall respond as best I can in the limited time to some of the points that the hon. Member for Canterbury and his colleagues have made, but I make it clear that, ultimately, our force structures must be shaped by our defence needs. No one has greater respect than I for the traditions and past of our armed forces, but the point of the strategic defence review is to ensure that those units and forces form a coherent, usable and relevant structure for today and for tomorrow, and do not merely reflect the past.
When we took office and I became Minister of State, we found our regular armed forces seriously undermanned, struggling under a heavy load of day-to-day commitments and desperately lacking in the unglamorous but essential areas of lift capacity, sustainability, defence medical services and a host of other elements that are equal to the reserves in our consideration of our ultimate fighting output. Our regular forces are coupled with a large but undernourished reserve, much of which is predicated on home defence roles that should have expired with the cold war and whose chief contribution is plugging gaps, which should not exist, in our regular forces.
I believe that we can improve the situation that we inherited, and that we owe it to the regulars and the reserves to do so. We have made it clear that we recognise that our reserve forces are an important part of our defence capability. Indeed, we have paid lavish tribute to the important work being carried out by members of the reserve forces who have been deployed on operations in Bosnia. I repeat that they have done a great job, of which they and hon. Members are justifiably proud.
We are committed to making better use of our reserve forces, and I aim to ensure that they are capable, usable and relevant to our overall defence needs and the modern strategic environment. I have no doubt that the results of the review will include an imaginative and exciting blueprint for the future of the reserve forces.
We have heard much today about the need for a strategic reserve, and we recognise that the reserves could serve as the basis for expanding our forces if a major


threat emerged. I assure hon. Members that changes to our force structures that might come about as a result of the strategic defence review will enhance, rather than detract from, our operational capability.
It is essential to consider what our armed forces are likely to have to do in future.

Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Reid: I shall not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
I have taken the point that we cannot predict exactly what is likely to happen. We cannot know everything about the future, but that does not mean that we should not make a sensible analysis of what might happen. Otherwise, we would need unlimited and unsustainable reserves to cover all contingencies. The hon. Gentleman supported a Government who cut defence resources by 32 per cent. during the 1990s, so he will know that we do not have unlimited resources.
An essential part of our work on the reserves has related to the impact of longer warning times and likely future missions. We may need to rebalance our forces between, for example, regular and reserve forces, or between combat units assigned to home defence and support units that are able to sustain expeditionary deployments abroad, which are likely to be a major feature of the strategic environment in which our forces have to operate. Our consideration of the balance of our forces arises from our current analysis, not from an undying respect for the past and an undying commitment not to change anything. We did not undertake the strategic defence review to create a monument to the past, but to create effective fighting capability for the future.
We recognise that the reserves have a wider role in society, other than a purely military one. I understand the points made by hon. Members in that regard, and I assure them that such factors have been taken into account.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public become aware of the skill, efficiency and dedication of the Territorial Army through their close ties with it? For example, in May 1993, B company of

the 3rd (Volunteer) Battalion, the Royal Welch Fusiliers, was the first to respond to flooding in Llandudno, Llandudno Junction and Deganwy.

Dr. Reid: I agree entirely about the nature of the link with the military. Llandudno, among other areas, has been a beacon to the nation.
The hon. Member for Canterbury drew useful international comparisons, and that with the United States National Guard is a favourite of his which is not without merits. However, he must not assume that a common language and culture with the United States and with Australia means that we should have a common regular-reserve balance of forces. The balance between regulars and reserves is driven by what soldiers may be required to do. A high proportion of a country's forces must be regular if it has a high level of day-to-day commitments and believes that it may have to deploy a substantial force quickly, as we do. I should not have to make that point for an ex-soldier of the hon. Member's experience.
We have, of course, considered battle casualty replacements, to which the hon. Member for Canterbury and others referred. He asked how we would expand forces in a new period of tension. We would need new recruits, people to train them, buildings in which to train them and a structure around which to organise them. The reserves are not the only source, but we recognise that they are an important source.
The hon. Gentleman said that a great number of United States reserves were sent to the Gulf. I should point out that they were called out compulsorily, which is against the traditions of this country. That is one of the matters which we want to consider—whether we should assume that reserves should be called out only in the event of a major war. I know that the United States Marine Corps did well, but all officers in the reserve component must be ex-regular.

Mr. Brazier: That is untrue.

Dr. Reid: I understand it to be true, and the hon. Gentleman would not want it to obtain in this country.
As far as I can see, there is great interest in this matter, which has not been unanticipated here. I am sure that the future will reflect the glorious past of the TA.

Health Deprivation (Blaenau Gwent)

1 pm

Mr. Llew Smith: I hope that the consultations proposed by the Minister on the reconfiguration of health trusts in Gwent will put both sides of the argument, and that the conclusion that is reached will be based on an option that is supported by the local community and also reflects the health needs of north Gwent. It would be sad if that did not happen, especially in Blaenau Gwent, which, as we all know, is the birthplace of the national health service. There—and, indeed, throughout north Gwent—the Minister's proposals are opposed by the community, local authorities and, perhaps more important, doctors, including consultants. About 50 doctors had the courage to make a public statement opposing the proposals.
I have mentioned the importance of consultation because the Minister has agreed to set up a project board to plan for the one-trust option. I know the Minister well enough to be aware that, although he has anticipated the result in some respects, he is still open-minded enough to recognise that we are in the business of real consultation. I know that he will listen, and will reach conclusions based on the evidence given to him.
My constituency, is part of north Gwent. This subject is important to the community there. Unfortunately, Blaenau Gwent is near the top of the league in terms of health deprivation. I am thinking of heart and respiratory problems, cancers, mental health problems, disability and long-term sickness, infant and standard mortality rates, and babies with a low birth weight. As the Government have recognised, deprivation is linked to those problems; indeed, it is a causal factor. Deprivation exists in abundance in Blaenau Gwent, however it is measured—in terms of low pay, high unemployment, bad housing or even low levels of car ownership.
On the one hand, the Minister seems to consider that the proposed trust areas should not break up local authority areas; on the other hand, he has given trust status to the Cynon valley. We do not oppose that decision. In fact, we applaud it, and we now ask the Minister to apply the same logic that he applied to the Rhondda-Cynon-Taff local authority area when it comes to north Gwent. If he can accept the split in the Rhondda-Cynon-Taff area, surely he can accept it in some of the Blaenau Gwent local authorities.

Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the conterminosity of health services and local authority services, and the resultant linking of primary and community health services with general health provision. We are afraid that, following the integration of trusts, resources for community and primary care will be sucked into the acute sector.

Mr. Smith: I agree. I must admit that I do not normally use such big words as "conterminosity", but I shall attempt it a little later.
The Minister will probably argue that the Cynon valley was given trust status before his recent proposals for reconfiguration. He is right, but, in our view, that argument is irrelevant. The point is that, in terms of the Cynon valley, the Minister has recognised the importance

of splitting up a local authority. Trust status will enable the Cynon valley to respond effectively to local health problems. Blaenau Gwent and the Cynon valley are similar, in that they are two of the poorest communities in Wales, with some of the worst health problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned conterminosity. How important is that from a trust's point of view? In practice, patients go to the areas where they think they will be treated best. Currently, patients in Nevill Hall hospital come from all five local authority areas. It will never be possible to achieve a perfect fit between the area served by a trust and the local authority boundary.
For example, Caerphilly local health group would buy services from the Royal Gwent hospital, but in the north of the valley most patients go to Prince Charles hospital in Merthyr, while some go to University of Wales hospital in Cardiff, which is outside the area of the Gwent trust and health authority. Powys GPs often refer patients to Nevill Hall, Hereford, Prince Charles or Royal Gwent. Again, local health groups would have to deal with those trusts.
Conterminosity is relevant to the planning of services by health authorities in association with GPs and social services, but it is not relevant to the planning of delivery of those services. The GPs will dictate that.
Whether we have one trust or two, the Minister should examine the formula that determines the amount of health service provision. The present funding formula works against communities such as Blaenau Gwent, which has high levels of health deprivation and contains many people who need long-term care. The Minister should develop a system that responds to health deprivation and the need for long-term care. He should adopt a new philosophy—a philosophy in line with the socialist principles that have attracted not only the Minister but generations of people to the Labour movement.
Under the present system, all Gwent bodies fail dismally to respond to Blaenau Gwent's health problems. Let me give two examples. As the Minister will know, a couple of years ago, the Gwent community health trusts decided to reorganise mental health provision in the area—which obviously included Blaenau Gwent. A public meeting was held to protest about the plans for Blaenau Gwent. It was attended mainly by mentally ill people and their families.
One of the two members of the Gwent body who had drawn up the plans admitted that he knew nothing about Blaenau Gwent, and had not even tried to consult patients, families, friends, doctors, nurses, social services departments, Members of Parliament or anyone else with an interest in health provision in our community. People were treated with disdain. At that rowdy public meeting, the chairman of the community health trust, Bob Hudson, said to mentally ill people, "Well, folks, you've lost out." We would have lost out but for the courage of those mentally ill people, who stood up and made their voices heard. That is one example of people being treated with disdain by Gwent.
The second example arises from the recognition by Gwent health authority of health deprivation in the area. What was its response? A couple of years ago, it withdrew one of the doctors from Cwm. Once again, the local community had to raise hell to force a return to the status quo, but as with most promises by the health authority,


two years later we are still waiting for that doctor. The Gwent bodies have not understood or responded to our problems.
Under Gwent trust, which will employ approximately 10,000 people, the situation will get worse. It will be centred in Newport, in the south of the county, and will be unable to develop closer links between the providers of community care, acute care, primary care, and social services and others. In planning patient discharge, general practitioners will have great difficulty in obtaining the co-operation that they need on hospital services. If they fail to get a response at local level, they will become involved in what is historically and always will be an unresponsive bureaucracy in the south of the county, where most of the population is concentrated and where all the money goes.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that services are becoming increasingly specialised. Some are provided regionally, and as there will be limited scope for administrative savings, the main target will be the rationalisation of patient care. To deliver savings, it is likely that specialised provision will be centred on the main population centres in the south of the county. As the Minister has said, that will be a gradual process, because Nevill Hall will continue as a district hospital. Such a hospital needs a minimum critical level of special provision, including intensive therapy, pathology, radiology and back-up provision for the main treatment programmes. That involves high investment in changing methods and technology.
With such decisions in the hands of a single trust, investment in Nevill Hall will gradually be eroded. As elements of the specialist services disappear, the front-line accident and emergency provision will not be viable, because emergency facilities will be centralised, and people in the most deprived communities, such as those in Blaenau Gwent, will have further to travel.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that there will also be an impact on the people of Powys and on the GPs who refer them to hospital? That is a vital issue. I agree that Nevill Hall has high-quality facilities and that there must not be any reduction in its status.

Mr. Smith: I have already said that many GPs in south Powys refer patients to Nevill Hall. We are debating a matter that is relevant not just to the heads of the valley, to north Gwent, because its relevance extends over the border, if I may use that term, to south Powys. The distance that a patient must travel for treatment is crucial to success. Nevill Hall caters for people in south Powys, but it also provides substantial acute and community health care for local people in the six community hospitals. They extend from Tredegar, the birthplace of the national health service, to Monmouth.
In the past four years, much to the credit of Nevill Hall hospital, the number of consultants has increased from 32 to 45, and that has brought a wide range of specialties to the community. Since 1994, Nevill Hall has recruited almost as many consultants as it was allowed to recruit in the 20 years before that. It is a success story. The hospital has also successfully provided services that people in north Gwent and south Powys need, and that is what the

debate is all about. It is not about creating structures but is about responding to health needs. If we fail to do that, we shall fail dismally as a Government.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key reasons for keeping the north Gwent trust is to maintain the integrity of Nevill Hall as a district general hospital and so attract and retain the specialist staff who are attracted to it because at the moment it is a specialist centre? Does he further agree that the debate will become important in the next few months? Will the Minister be able to meet again those of us who came to see him in the Welsh Office recently to discuss the matter?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Nevill Hall is currently an attractive hospital. Many consultants are attracted to it, partly because of the area, of which we are all justifiably proud, but we should not assume that all consultants wish to work in hospitals with 800 or 1,000 beds. Some people take a different view. A senior member of Nevill Hall told me some days ago that job interviews had been conducted with consultants, and that the one who had been invited to accept the job told the chair of the interviewing committee that he intended to withdraw his application because of the possibility of one trust serving the whole of Gwent. He did not find that an attractive proposition.
Nevill Hall has a fine record for day care, and for community hospital and other services in which it excels. That is evident from the amount of support for the north Gwent trust. One of the most important factors in patient recovery and care is the distance between a patient's home and where he is being cared for. If Nevill Hall's facilities are gradually eroded, its reason for existence, which is to serve the community, will also be eroded.
The Minister will say that my scenario is unrealistic because decisions about north Gwent will be made by the local health group. Such groups will consist of health authority officers, general practitioners, and people from social services and the local community. We are told that they will have a strategic role. However, it will be some years before local health groups have any real influence or money to spend on buying the services that they need. By that time, the services in Nevill Hall could have been whittled away, so that when the local health groups have any clout, they could face an irreversible pattern of provision.
In Gwent, the local health groups may have influence, but they will not have real power. For that they would need sanctions, such as buying services from another hospital trust, but the creation of a single trust would eliminate choice for the people of north Gwent and, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) said, for those in south Powys. The health groups would have to buy what the single trust made available for patients, who might have to travel for miles to Hereford, to the Prince Charles hospital in Merthyr or even to Gloucester. The establishment of a single trust in Gwent would create a monopoly, and that is not good.
Above all, the submission by Gwent health authority ignored the fundamental criteria that the Minister has laid down, and I am sure that he will wish to respond to that. One of them was patient choice for access to local specialist services, but the authority document does not even mention that all-important matter.


My hon. Friends and I would like to say much more, but we are running out of time and it is important to give the Minister time to respond. In the fine traditions of not only the Minister but the Labour movement, I am sure that he will respond positively.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on securing the debate. I hope that I shall be able to respond positively, because the debate is important.
We are dealing with the complex issue of health deprivation, and I certainly understand and share my hon. Friend's concerns about health deprivation in Blaenau Gwent and, indeed, throughout Wales. He will be aware—his speech testifies to it—that there is much to do in redressing the legacy that the Government inherited. The path to success will not always be easy, as there are difficult problems to be faced and dealt with en route, but the Government are determined to improve the health of the nation and, in particular, to deal with current inequalities in health status. They have already set in train some important measures and actions to tackle the situation, both within the health service and more broadly. Of course, there are many more in the pipeline.
As the House knows, our White Paper "Putting Patients First" sets out a programme of long-term reform and improvement for health services in Wales. In coming years, the excesses of the internal market will be progressively replaced by new programmes of co-operative activity between the health service and others, particularly local authorities. Bureaucracy will be reduced and the quality of care improved. The programmes will be reinforced by a strategy for the nation's health, details of which I shall announce shortly in a Green Paper.
We inherited a haphazard pattern of NHS trusts, which were poorly placed to respond to challenges. The trusts in Wales had been created as a result of local applications to support a market-based philosophy and to compete with each other in an attempt to drive efficiency into the system, but competition spawned unnecessary conflict and tension. It created unnecessary bureaucracy, paper chasing and haggling over minute details, rather than giving proper attention to what mattered: high-quality health services, money targeted to improve access to services, more doctors and nurses, better hospitals and modern equipment. We are determined to put right the problems of the past. A substantial reduction in the number of NHS trusts will be a significant contribution to that aim.
The decisions that I announced last week were not taken lightly. The proposal for a single trust in Gwent was based on the following reasons. First, I was keen to maintain, wherever possible—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has pointed out, it was not possible to do it throughout Wales—conterminosity of health service provision with services provided by local authorities, particularly their social services departments.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend received the recent delegation from Monmouthshire and Blaenau Gwent, but does he

acknowledge that local authorities that made representations to him did not make conterminosity the overriding principle, as he seems to do? Although we all agree with his wish to see more effective collaboration between health authorities, trusts and social services, the boundary should not be the overriding principle.

Mr. Griffiths: Obviously, the boundary issue is not the overriding principle, but it is important that we get these things right, particularly with regard to the important role that local authorities can have in developing and improving health care in conjunction with local health groups, new NHS trusts and, of course, the health authority.
Close collaboration is vital in providing the seamless service that patients deserve. I have to admit that I am excited about the prospects involved in the new co-operation between the NHS and local government. Joint management of a wide range of services, especially for vulnerable groups of people, will ensure that local authorities—again, wherever possible—do not have to get into business with more than one NHS trust. It is important to do that as far as possible.
Secondly, the single trust solution offers the potential for much greater sub-specialisation, so improving the delivery of specialist services for the people of Gwent. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent is keen that that should happen at Nevill Hall. I want it to happen at Nevill Hall and at the Royal Gwent. I want the two hospitals to move forward together in improving services.
Thirdly, the integration of acute, community and mental health services throughout Gwent would remove artificial boundaries between health providers. Finally, the single trust solution appears to offer potential for greater savings from a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy. As I have made clear throughout the exercise, trust reconfiguration is not primarily about saving money, but we must ensure that as much money as possible is channelled towards direct patient care, rather than paper chasing and detailed haggling about finances and contracts.
For all those reasons, I decided to accept the Gwent health authority proposal that we consult on the single trust option. There will be a period of consultation over the summer months. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent will be heartened to know that the management board that is conducting the consultation and preparing the papers for the new trust in Gwent is headed by a councillor from Blaenau Gwent, Peter Law. I am sure that he will have every confidence that Peter Law will want to ensure that all the difficulties in health service provision that have been identified by my hon. Friend will be dealt with in bringing forward the project, which will be subject to consultation.

Mr. John Smith: Will the consultation genuinely listen to the user groups, in particular, and to those very local authorities and other elected bodies with which we want to work in partnership, to provide the best possible health care? Will my hon. Friend be prepared to listen to those views and, indeed, if need be, to change the recommendations that are before us?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall want to ensure that, as a result of the consultation, the new trusts that I am proposing


come forward with proposals that show an identifiable gain in the delivery of health services in their areas. If they cannot show that, they will not be approved. If there is a need to change the proposals in any significant way, a completely new round of consultations will have to take place, but I want to make it absolutely clear to everyone that the merged trusts, the individual hospitals involved and the local populations will not see a diminution of health services that are currently provided.
Local health groups, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent alluded, will be vital in providing the service. They will work from a plan that has built into it improvements in health service delivery, so there will be no question of the groups facing a hospital that has lost services; that is not part of the plan.
We want to ensure that local general practitioners, social service representatives, other professionals in the health service and interested local health service bodies play a full part in ensuring that their nearest hospital is the one where services are provided for the people in their area, and that mental health and community services will be provided in a way that best meets the needs of local people. That is the whole purpose of carrying through the trust reconfiguration. Anything less would fly in the face of our commitments to put right the wrongs of the past and to improve health services.
On resource allocation, we are currently reviewing the allocation formula to ensure that it takes account of best practice elsewhere and of relevant data on health need. The working group has not yet reported its findings to me, but it may recommend changes to the current formula or the introduction of a new approach. At this stage, it is not possible to say exactly what will happen, but I believe that we could introduce a wider range of variables into the formulae that take account of particular health circumstances.
The future health service will be different. Local health groups will have a fundamental role in defining and commissioning primary, community and secondary care. They will commission local health care from the NHS trusts. The trusts will simply retain their existing responsibilities for providing services according to the commissioners' requirements. The doctors, health care professionals and local authority social services departments will decide what services they want from the trust.

Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Griffiths: Much as I would like to give way, I cannot, because I am in the last minute.
We shall soon publish a Green Paper focusing on the development of a public health strategy. We shall seek to improve the health of people in Wales—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister will have to give way now, because we must move on to the next subject.

Mrs. Stephanie Atkinson

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the Legal Aid Board and its actions—or more particularly, its inactions—in the case of my constituent Mrs. Stephanie Atkinson.
Mrs. Atkinson was divorced in 1991. At that time a settlement was agreed allowing her to remain in the marital home. She acquired her husband's share of the equity and accepted responsibility for the mortgage, while Mr. Atkinson retained the benefit of two endowment policies. After the divorce, Mrs. Atkinson obtained part-time employment, and was in receipt of income support for a period. Because of the payment of that benefit, the Child Support Agency intervened, requesting that Mr. Atkinson increase his maintenance payment for the two children of the marriage—two boys aged 14 and 12.
Using different solicitors from those who had acted for him over the divorce, Mr. Atkinson attempted to have the original divorce settlement set aside, seeking new terms less advantageous to my constituent, which involved, among other things, the transfer of a share of the equity in the marital home to him. Mrs. Atkinson resisted that, and the matter went to court in Bury St. Edmunds, where, on 8 April 1994, it was decided that there was no case to be heard. The costs of the action were awarded against Mr. Atkinson.
Mr. Atkinson undertook that attempt to alter the original divorce settlement for his own benefit. Mrs. Atkinson's refusal to accept the proposed change was vindicated by the court. In bringing the action, Mr. Atkinson received legal aid, perhaps because he had been out of work for a period following the divorce. However, he was working again by April 1994.
The problem facing my constituent stems from the fact that the Legal Aid Board has a charge over her house resulting from the original divorce settlement. As the charge was not registered until after 1994, she did not know the precise amount until recently. She incurred legal costs of just over £3,000 at the time of the divorce. If she sells her home, she will have to repay that sum to the board. That aspect of the matter is not in dispute, and has always been accepted by Mrs. Atkinson.
Following Mr. Atkinson's subsequent action, the board is seeking to enforce the charge over Mrs. Atkinson's home in the larger sum of about £5,500. That sum appears to include Mr. Atkinson's legal costs from his unsuccessful 1994 action and interest, which is accruing daily at 8 per cent. per annum even on the additional disputed sum relating to Mr. Atkinson's costs.
The Legal Aid Board is seeking to recover from Mrs. Atkinson the costs that were incurred by Mr. Atkinson in an unsuccessful attempt to improve his position at her expense. That is a clear and serious breach of natural justice. Mrs. Atkinson did not initiate the action. Her refusal to accept a change to the original settlement was justified, yet she is required to pay the costs of her ex-husband's legal action, despite the fact that his income is now significantly higher than hers.
Mrs. Atkinson explained the circumstances to me in March last year at my constituency surgery. She is supporting herself and her two sons through full-time


employment, and is doing everything she can to avoid becoming a burden on the taxpayer or on anyone else. She is naturally dismayed at having to meet her ex-husband's legal costs.
After our initial meeting, I contacted the Land Registry to seek the removal of the charge that the Legal Aid Board had over her house. As Mrs. Atkinson does not dispute that some money would be payable to the Legal Aid Board if she sold her home, the removal of the charge is not possible. I also contacted people at the Cambridge area office of the Legal Aid Board, who explained that, if they could not recover the costs of the second action from Mr. Atkinson, they would seek to recover them from Mrs. Atkinson. The charge over her home would have to be increased by the amount of the potentially uncollected costs.
In April last year, Mrs. Atkinson made it clear that she did not feel that the Legal Aid Board had made sufficient effort to recover the costs from her husband. I share that view, and conveyed it to the Cambridge office of the Legal Aid Board in a letter on 7 April. The reply simply suggested that, if she was dissatisfied with the board's efforts to recover costs from Mr. Atkinson, she could pursue the matter through its complaints procedure.
After the general election, I contacted the Legal Aid Board head office in London, who wrote to me on 1 July confirming that £1,884.63 of the costs related to Mr. Atkinson's unsuccessful action, and that interest was accruing on those costs. In August, I was informed that the relevant file, which should have been kept by the Cambridge area office, had been destroyed, making it difficult to determine whether the value of the endowment policies that Mr. Atkinson retained after the divorce had been taken into account when the board decided not to pursue him for the recovery of his costs.
I was also concerned to learn that, if Mr. Atkinson had used those endowment policies as security for the purchase of a further home after his divorce, the board would not be entitled to take their value into account when assessing his means for enforcement purposes. That is another serious injustice. Although Mr. Atkinson can shelter his assets to prevent the Legal Aid Board from recovering legal costs from him, Mrs. Atkinson—the innocent party—cannot take similar action. I hope that the Minister will comment on that injustice.
On 12 August, the Minister wrote me a general letter, which did not directly address the issues raised by the case. A further letter from him on 22 September added little to his earlier reply. I have read those letters again this morning, and I find it hard to believe that he read either of my letters to him about the case before sending his replies.
At that point, the Minister asked the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to contact me. On 19 September, I received a letter containing the extraordinary assertion that the board was not trying to recover from my constituent the costs that had been incurred by Mr. Atkinson. If that assertion was remotely true, I would not need to raise the matter now.
The chief executive of the Legal Aid Board agreed to re-examine the matter of the endowment policies. By that time, I was able to confirm that the policies were not linked to the purchase of another home by Mr. Atkinson—

information that had originally been given to the Legal Aid Board, at the beginning of 1997, by Mrs. Atkinson's solicitors.
Although I was assured that I would be kept informed, the trail went cold for almost three months before the Legal Aid Board wrote again, suggesting that Mrs. Atkinson could take action against Mr. Atkinson to recover those costs. However, the board's own view was that it would not be cost-effective for the board itself to do so.
Not only was no reason given to explain why Mrs. Atkinson, rather than the board, should have to take the action, but the suggestion completely overlooked the fact that Mrs. Atkinson is understandably reluctant to initiate an action against her former husband, for fear of the damage that it might to do to their already fragile relationship, the nature of which leaves her extremely vulnerable to retaliation.
There the matter now rests—a situation which is worthy of Charles Dickens. My constituent—a divorced mother, struggling to support herself and her two children—is faced with supine bureaucracy on all sides. When her former husband attempted to vary the terms of a previously agreed divorce settlement to her disadvantage, she wished to protect her position and that of her children. The court found in her favour, but the Legal Aid Board still required her to meet the costs of her husband's failed action.
The same board—having destroyed a file that was clearly still active, and having requested information that had been supplied to it months earlier—has, after a further three months' delay, decided that it is unable, for reasons that are completely unexplained, to take any action to recover the costs from Mr. Atkinson. The sums may not seem enormous to the board, but they are of great significance to my constituent.
Two issues of principle are also involved. First, my constituent should not be expected to pay the costs of an action—which she won—brought against her by her ex-husband for his own purposes. Secondly, it is wrong for the board, with all the resources at its command, to suggest that my constituent should have to initiate the recovery action against her former husband. It was the board's failure to act that caused the problem initially.
I should be grateful if the Minister would address those two issues. I am sure that he will agree that the system should not operate so obviously to the disadvantage of my constituent.
Thirdly, I should be grateful also if the Minister will also explain just what action the Legal Aid Board has taken to try to recover Mr. Atkinson's costs from him. As the Minister knows, the board has a statutory duty to recover money expended on a legally aided case. So far, the board seems to be interpreting that duty in an extraordinarily one-sided manner, by looking exclusively to Mrs. Atkinson for its costs.
As my third request was not in the draft of my speech, which I sent to the Minister's office, I shall understand if he would prefer to write to me with a detailed answer to it.
Finally, and in any event, I shall be grateful if the Minister will now assure me that the Legal Aid Board will make a proper attempt to recover from Mr. Atkinson the costs incurred by him, so that the burden of those costs does not fall on my constituent.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for the clarity of his speech, setting out the position of his constituent Mrs. Stephanie Atkinson. I also thank him for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his speech in advance of today's debate. However, I am disappointed that the detailed explanations provided in my letters to him and in those of the Legal Aid Board have not yet satisfied him. Nevertheless, I shall endeavour to clarify the position once and for all.
I emphasise that my explanation today will not differ in substance from that which I gave in writing to him on 12 August and 22 September 1997. I had read all the relevant correspondence before writing to him on each of those occasions.
Decisions on civil legal aid are made in accordance with the law by the Legal Aid Board, a body which is independent of ministerial control. It is an important principle that such decisions are, and are seen to be, free from political or governmental interference.
The specific case that the hon. Member for South Suffolk has raised was a matrimonial dispute in which both parties were legally aided. Both were therefore of limited financial means. Before legal aid is granted, an applicant must pass both a means test and a merits test, which are conducted by the board in accordance with relevant legislation. An applicant must qualify financially for civil legal aid, by satisfying the Legal Aid Board that his or her income and capital are within current financial limits. It is worth noting that the board will not take into account any matrimonial assets that are the subject of a dispute.
An applicant must also show that he or she has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings, and that it is reasonable in the specific circumstances of the case for legal aid to be granted. That is known as the merits test. The board must consider, for example, whether the case has a reasonable chance of success, whether the benefits of litigation would outweigh the cost to public funds, and whether the applicant would receive any significant personal benefit from proceeding, bearing in mind any liability to repay the costs if successful.
Those factors are similar to those which would influence a privately paying client when considering whether to become involved in legal proceedings. In the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, both parties satisfied the means and merits tests, and both were granted legal aid.
Any case before the court, whether privately funded or legally aided, may result in costs being awarded against the losing side at the end of proceedings. The decision on the award of costs lies with the court, which has wide powers of discretion to direct what costs should be paid and by whom. The general rule is that the losing party will pay the winning party's reasonable costs.
In this case, the judge awarded Mrs. Atkinson costs in the amount of £1,884.63 because of the second action brought by Mr. Atkinson, when he attempted unsuccessfully to vary the divorce settlement. Those were Mrs. Atkinson's reasonable costs in resisting his

application to the court. In principle, she would have had to meet those costs regardless of whether she was legally aided.
There are certain special rules on costs in relation to a legally aided party, as there would be little point in making an order for costs against someone who is eligible for legal aid—who is, by definition, of limited means. The court therefore stated that the order for costs could not be enforced without leave of the court. The decision was made under section 17 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, which limits costs against legally aided parties.
The Legal Aid Board considered the matter of enforcement of the costs order. As I said, under the law, the order cannot be enforced without leave of the court—which, in this case, would have to make a determination of Mr. Atkinson's ability to pay. Any application made to the court would require documentary evidence to show that the person's financial circumstances had improved since the original hearing. Originally, Mr. Atkinson must have been granted legal aid on the basis that he was of limited means, and therefore unable to meet any order for costs.
When the board is considering whether to pursue a costs order, it has to consider whether such action would prove cost-effective. The board would have to consider the amount that could be recovered from Mr. Atkinson, and the costs of instructing an agent firm of solicitors to perform the work. Moreover, it should be emphasised that, if the action were not successful, Mrs. Atkinson would become legally liable to pay any additional costs incurred.
I understand that the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board has written to the hon. Member for South Suffolk explaining the position. I have also requested a full report on the case. However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, if he is not satisfied with the responses that he has received from the board, he may refer the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
It is important to emphasise that, in principle, at the end of any case, it is for each side to pay their own solicitors' costs. That is the position in principle, regardless of whether the parties are legally aided. Although the successful party may recover his or her reasonable costs against the losing party, in most cases, not all the actual costs are recovered. The balance will still have to be paid by the winner.
In cases where the client is legally aided, the solicitor will receive payment from the Legal Aid Board, which, under the law, will then have to recover its costs from the solicitor's client directly, through a process known as the statutory charge. That charge means that, if, as a result of the case, the legally aided client preserves or wins anything, the Legal Aid Board can recover any deficit from what has been preserved or recovered.
The statutory charge applies irrespective of the personal circumstances of the assisted party, and ensures that the legally aided person is placed as far as possible in the same position as an unassisted party, whose responsibility at the end of the case is to pay any of their own legal costs that have not been paid by the other side.
It is important to appreciate that the Legal Aid Board has no discretion to waive the statutory charge under section 16 of the Act. Section 16(6) of the Legal Aid


Act 1988 makes it clear that the first charge will be for the benefit of the board on any property that is recovered or preserved in the proceedings.
Mrs. Atkinson retained an interest in the marital home, which it was decided had a value of £20,000. It was therefore necessary under the law to apply the statutory charge to the property in order to recover the total legal costs paid on her behalf, including the sum that Mr. Atkinson was ordered to pay to her.
I should emphasise that the statutory charge will apply only to Mrs. Atkinson's legal costs. She has not been asked to pay any of Mr. Atkinson's legal costs. The statutory charge has been an essential feature of the legal aid system since it was established in 1949. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Suffolk may remember that he voted for the legislation that is enshrined in the Legal Aid Act 1988.
It should be noted that the legal aid scheme is designed to put assisted parties on the same footing as privately paying parties wherever possible. As a result, assisted parties are required to pay a contribution, when appropriate, and to repay to the legal aid fund any moneys they receive in the course of the proceedings. Even parties who have received non-contributory legal aid are subject to the statutory charge. In effect, where an assisted person is wholly or partly successful in recovering or preserving goods or properties, the operation of the statutory charge converts legal aid from a gift to a loan.
I am aware that the immediate imposition of the statutory charge can cause undue hardship. For that reason, a legally aided party may, if necessary conditions are met, postpone the operation of the statutory charge. A condition of postponement is, however, the payment of interest. In order to postpone the charge, the legally aided person must agree in writing to pay interest over the period of the postponement.
The rate of interest charged by the Legal Aid Board is 8 per cent. per annum simple interest—not, I emphasise, the compound interest charged by many mortgage lenders. The board has no discretion under the law to waive interest. In contrast, privately paying clients may have to take out a loan to pay their legal advisers, and would be paying a commercial rate of compound interest.
If postponement of the charge is permitted, as in this case, the legally aided person is, in fact, in a better position than a privately paying client, since there is no requirement to sell the property in order to repay the loan. The loan may not be paid back for many years—until, for example, the legally aided party chooses to sell. A private client, however, would be expected to pay their legal costs immediately. When the statutory charge is paid by instalments, the board normally expects a minimum of £25 per payment. The payments are first used to cover any outstanding interest, but any residue reduces the amount of the charge.
The operation of the statutory charge and the accrual of interest should not come as a surprise to someone who is legally aided. From the outset of the case, the solicitor should explain the charge and the possible effects as the case proceeds. The legally aided person


should also be given a leaflet, produced by the board, which explains the operation of the statutory charge. When the legally aided person signs the legal aid application form, he or she acknowledges that the charge has been properly explained to them. Mrs. Atkinson signed an agreement on 17 January 1994 to postpone the charge and to pay interest.
Although application forms contain warnings about the effect of the charge, the board is firmly of the view that it is the solicitor's responsibility to ensure that the client is kept fully informed about its implications throughout the case. As with all legal aid payments, the solicitor's costs and counsel's fees are paid out of the legal aid fund, not out of the charge.
I apologise for the technical explanation of the case. It is unfortunate that the devil is in the detail of the matter. Only by explaining the detail can the facts in this unfortunate case be properly understood. I hope that the hon. Member for South Suffolk now properly understands both the law and the facts of the case.

Mr. Yeo: As we still have a moment or two left, I should like to express my disappointment at the Minister's reply. Although he set out the principles on which legal aid can be granted, and although he explained in some detail—which I was able to follow—the circumstances under which interest is charged, and so on, those are not the matters that have caused the greatest concern to my constituent.
We were aware that there would have to be repayment of costs that arose in the original divorce settlement. There was clearly a gain of property because Mrs. Atkinson received a share of the equity in the marital home—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak twice in the debate. He must make a brief intervention.

Mr. Yeo: The substance of my constituent's concern—and my concern—is the failure of the Legal Aid Board to carry out its statutory duty to recover costs in an even-handed way. It is taking the easy route by using its charge on my constituent's property to recover costs. It does not appear to be making any attempt to recover costs from Mr. Atkinson. I hope that the Minister will at least write to tell me what steps the board intends to take to recover costs from Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. Hoon: I have sought to explain to the hon. Gentleman the particular problem, which is that both parties at the outset were legally aided. In those circumstances, the law requires that very careful consideration be given before any procedures are used to enforce payment of costs by a legally aided party. I explained carefully that there is little purpose in cost orders against legally aided parties, since, by definition, having qualified for legal aid, they are unlikely to have sufficient funds to meet any order for costs. That was the position at the conclusion of the second case.
Thereafter, the hon. Member for South Suffolk might make a good point if he were able to point to substantial assets that Mr. Atkinson had. The difficulty that the Legal Aid Board faces is that, if there is


evidence that Mr. Atkinson had sufficient funds to meet the order for costs, the Legal Aid Board has to instruct solicitors to act against him in order to recover those costs. Someone has to pay for those proceedings. The person who might have to pay, particularly if the proceedings go wrong, is Mrs. Atkinson.
In the exercise of its judgment, the Legal Aid Board decided that it would not be appropriate to expend more of her money—it is, in effect, her money, because it would come out of the statutory charge—in order to

pursue Mr. Atkinson in what might well turn out to be entirely fruitless proceedings, further aggravating the problem that the hon. Gentleman has set out. That is why the Legal Aid Board chooses not to pursue someone like Mr. Atkinson in the absence of any clear evidence of sufficient resources to meet any order for costs.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

"Partnership for Equality"

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What responses she has received to the Government's White Paper "Partnership for Equality". [36889]

Mr. Tony McNulty: What responses she has received to the Government's White Paper "Partnership for Equality". [36892]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): To date, two formal responses have been received to the consultation proposals in the White Paper "Partnership for Equality", but the three-month consultative period will end on 12 June 1998.

Dr. Godman: We all know why the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Prime Minister are absent this afternoon. I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that we wish them well in their remarkable endeavours to bring about a tolerable accommodation among the participants in the talks.
Turning to the laddie from Clydebank, may I say that I appreciate talk about setting up an equality commission, but I hope that my hon. Friend is going to tell me that there will be a harmonisation of legislation relating to fair employment, gender, sex and disability. I remind my hon. Friend that one in six adults in Northern Ireland are disabled. What is the White Paper going to do for them?

Mr. Worthington: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and associate myself with those relating to the efforts of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). No three people could be doing more to bring about an historic and honourable settlement than they are, and we wish them well.
If, after the consultation period, the Government go ahead with an equality commission, one of the biggest steps that we shall take will be to make it the duty of every Government Department to show how its policies are promoting equality of opportunity, which will benefit all the eight groups of people who suffer the risk or the reality of being disadvantaged. The Departments' efforts will be supplemented by a powerful, independent equality commission. I trust that my hon. Friend, and my neighbour in constituency terms, is reassured by those remarks.

Mr. McNulty: In light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said in his supplementary question, may I exhort all hon. Members who contribute to this Question Time to choose their words carefully so as not to impinge on what is happening in Belfast as we speak?
As for the White Paper, may I first have an assurance that the opinions of all those who respond by the end of the three-month period will receive due consideration? Secondly, will the Minister explain how the new legislation outlined in the White Paper will build on the fairness-at-work legislation?

Mr. Worthington: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the wisdom of his initial words.
The equality White Paper seeks to build on what the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights said about the progress that has been made in achieving fair employment over the past few years. However, enormous problems remain to be tackled in terms of community unemployment differentials, and that must be the centre point of our efforts in future. Our new deal, which was successfully launched on Monday in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, will be tackling that unemployment, and all the equality measures in the White Paper are aimed at making Northern Ireland a conspicuously fair society.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the new deal launched earlier this week has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland; that that major initiative will lead to greater equity of treatment, fairness and justice than has existed in the past; and that it will provide those who are presently unemployed with the opportunity to compete in the job market, and help them to get out of the benefit trap and overcome the disadvantage and deprivation they have suffered in the past? Does he agree that those who are presently unemployed must take those opportunities and help themselves? Does he also agree that the high birth rate in Northern Ireland and continuing terrorism make it difficult to attract sufficient new investment to create jobs and equal opportunities for all?

Mr. Worthington: What will help Northern Ireland above all are a peaceful society and an honourable and just settlement, which can be arrived at this week. That is the best message possible for fairness in employment and prosperity.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the launch of the new deal, and thank him and his party for their support for the new deal. Nearly 1,000 firms have shown an interest in the new deal; 85 groups came forward to be appointed as consortiums and we have chosen 26, many of which are local district councils or further education colleges. I am confident that that response means that we have the framework to enable us seriously to tackle unemployment problems, currently especially among young people, but progressively among other people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: In connection with the new deal, has the Minister taken into consideration the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) about the birth rate in Northern Ireland, which, at about 5.4 per cent., is higher than that in the Republic of Ireland and three times the European average? Is the Minister aware that, in Londonderry alone, 3,000 new jobs a year would be needed simply to maintain the current rate of unemployment? What plans


has he in hand to deal with that issue, which is fundamental to the disparity in employment between the two communities?

Mr. Worthington: We propose, in all our policies, to increase the number of jobs. That is what we started to do on Monday, and we shall continue our efforts over the coming months.

Dr. Brian Iddon: May I welcome the publication of the White Paper "Partnership for Equality", which provides the evidence that better child care facilities and education and training in preparation for the job market lessen the discrimination between the Northern Ireland communities? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in publishing that document, the Government have provided a framework for further improvement in all those areas?

Mr. Worthington: I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's comments. The equality document is but one part of the whole equation that we have to put in place. I expect to announce in May the Northern Ireland child care strategy to minor the national child care strategy, and to further the good start that we have made in the matters my hon. Friend mentions.

Beef Ban

Mr. David Chaytor: What progress is being made in lifting the ban on beef exports from Northern Ireland. [36890]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): The Government are pleased that the proposals for an export certified herd scheme were accepted by a qualified majority at the Agriculture Council on 16 March. The next step in restoring exports of beef from Northern Ireland is for European Commission officials to carry out an inspection in Northern Ireland of all aspects of the ECHS. That inspection is likely to take place in the week commencing 20 April, when I expect that we shall be given a clean bill of health. The Commission will then set a date for the resumption of exports of Northern Ireland beef. While I recognise that market conditions are difficult, I am confident that the Northern Ireland industry can cope with the challenges on the basis of quality and reputation.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he give the House an indication of when the ban might be lifted and what assessment he has made of the impact of lifting the ban on the wider economy of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Worthington: To take the second point first, the beef industry and agriculture in general are hugely important within Northern Ireland. When we succeed in getting the ban lifted and exports flow again, it will give a remarkable and welcome boost to the economy of Northern Ireland. I cannot give a definitive time scale for the lifting of the ban, which will depend on the European Union inspection of our procedures for the export certified herd scheme. We hope that the report of the visit will be

submitted soon after the inspection, and it is conceivable—I only say conceivable—that exports could resume by mid-May.

Mr. William Thompson: I thank the Minister for indicating that the ban will, hopefully, be lifted in a short time. Does he realise that a large marketing effort will be needed to gain back the exports that we have lost, which will require considerable expense? Is the Department prepared to help to get those markets back by putting money into marketing? Furthermore, as a result of the ban being lifted, there will be more flagged herds, which means that farmers who have such herds will be at a greater loss. Will the Department help in those two difficult areas by putting in more money?

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman's points were well made. We realise the significance of the issue to agribusiness in Northern Ireland, which is responsible for 60,000 jobs. I can assure him that both the International Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit will do all they can to assist with the whole initiative we need to take to restore markets for Northern Ireland beef.

Mr. James Cran: The Opposition obviously welcome what the Minister has said, but can he say more about procedures after the inspection? In other words, is the Standing Veterinary Committee to be consulted? If that is the case, he will obviously know that the industry will be disappointed because it will clearly result in more delay. Does he further agree that this is not the end of the problem? Let us consider prices. In Holland, a kilo of beef sold for 220p in 1996, whereas it now sells for 150p. That is good for sales, but bad for profitability. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. After the catastrophe caused by BSE in the British beef industry—a catastrophe that could have been avoided—a long, slow, hard and determined effort will be needed to win back business. As for the procedure, we are talking about European Union officials and they will report back to the Commission, which will then decide when the ban is to be lifted. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to write to him about the specific details and procedures, I shall be only too pleased to do so.

Multi-party Talks

Mr. John McDonnell: If she will make a statement on progress in the all-party talks. [36891]

Mr. David Winnick: If she will make a statement on the current peace talks. [36893]

Mr. Andrew Hunter: If she will make a statement on the all-party talks. [36895]

Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make a statement on progress in the multi-party talks. [36897]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): After two years of negotiations, and under the skilful guidance of Senator Mitchell, the participants are in the final stages of reaching a comprehensive political agreement. On Tuesday morning, Senator Mitchell tabled a draft paper for discussion in the talks. The paper is predominantly a synthesis of the views of the parties and the two Governments, and aims to satisfy as many people as possible.
It is not surprising that differences have emerged between the parties, but those are matters to be resolved within the talks. In that context, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he will do all he can to help the parties to reach agreement, and that is exactly what he and the Taoiseach are doing at present.
I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending our condolences to Mr. Ahern on the death of his mother and in expressing our appreciation of his continued involvement in the talks at this sad time.
The parties have shown leadership and courage to bring us to this point. I have no doubt that they will renew their efforts as we move towards the end of the negotiations. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to reach an agreement which will provide a peaceful and stable society, for which so many people have worked over the years.

Mr. McDonnell: By way of introduction, I should say that we have all been aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has borne the brunt of the talks for the past 10 months in most difficult personal health circumstances, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to convey my and, I am sure, all hon. Members' thanks to the Secretary of State for bearing that brunt, and for her commitment to securing what we hope will be an historic negotiated settlement tomorrow.
May I also convey the need, after tomorrow, for the maintenance of a momentum towards peace—considering deadlines for dealing with issues, such as the situation of political prisoners in Northern Ireland and their future release, the demilitarisation of the six counties, reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the empowerment of the new democratic structures, which I hope will enable us to hear the united voice of the Irish people?

Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the whole House will share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend about the efforts, energy and commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put into the negotiations, not only during the past 10 months, but in her previous role as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She has been fully engaged with the process during that period.
My hon. Friend asks about the momentum and the need to continue a process beyond this. The House will realise that peace is not an event but a process, and the process will begin following the signing of any agreement, which we hope will take place within the next 36 hours or so. I have no doubt that that will be a complicated agreement, but it is one that everyone must ensure is implemented in full, and it can be implemented in full only with the whole-hearted support of the people of Northern Ireland and all hon. Members.

Mr. Winnick: As we all hope agreement will be reached, shall we praise not only, of course, the representatives of the British and Irish Governments,

but Senator George Mitchell, who has undoubtedly dedicated so much effort to trying to secure a negotiated agreement? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there is one message today above all others that should go out, it is that all the parties involved in the talks should continue until agreement is reached?

Mr. Ingram: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the role played by Senator George Mitchell. Of course, many others have played an important role, such as the co-chairmen who have worked alongside him in chairing the talks proceedings and the independent commission on decommissioning. It is important that we continue on the basis that he has described, and that is exactly what is happening in Belfast at this moment.

Mr. Hunter: Although I greatly hope that agreement can be reached this week, will the Minister explain why, in less than three months from being broadly accepted, the heads of agreement paper has come to be regarded as a blueprint pointing towards the creation of a united Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman refers to the heads of agreement document, but the process has moved on since then. That document is a matter for discussion within the talks, and the important talks that are taking place in Belfast at this moment have been framed around that particular document. It is for the talks' participants to determine and structure the best way forward, and on that we wish them godspeed.

Mr. Barnes: The Minister will be aware that there are awkward squads in the Labour party which are opposed to changes in single parent benefits and have views on spending limits that are different from those of Front-Bench spokesmen. However, wherever one goes, a characteristic within the Labour party is the popularity of the views of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Front-Bench team, and the work they are doing to achieve peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Everything needs to be done to support those moves and to encourage the politicians involved in the talks on all sides to reconcile their different positions and reach an agreement that we can all support, and which will be supported in referendums throughout the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As someone who has been closely engaged in this whole process over many years, he has been a positive player in trying to bring about a better society in Northern Ireland. He has made his contribution towards achieving a peaceful and lasting settlement there.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister telling us that he is not aware of the assumption now spreading across Northern Ireland that the draft agreement presented to the Stormont talks participants on Monday evening is so outrageous in its terms and content that it could not possibly be considered as the real paper, and that a second authentic and watered-down version of that document will be presented before tomorrow's deadline? The assumption is that it is an attempt to convince people that considerable concessions have been made to the


Unionist position, especially in regard to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, and an attempt to blackmail the Ulster Unionist party into accepting the unwarranted interference in the government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ingram: I would not want to respond to assumptions or perceptions. That has been part of the problem of trying to move the process forward. We have to deal with the realities, which is what the talks participants are doing at this very moment. They are trying to deal with the harsh realities and with the various papers coming before them. They are having to reconcile their differences in order to reach an eventual agreement.

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend the Minister has been part of the team trying to get a solution to the problem. He will be aware that there are splinter elements within Northern Ireland which do not want to see a solution to the problem, as evidenced in Londonderry last night. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, particularly of late, the Garda Siochana, on their recent success in intercepting material for planned terrorist attacks that could have had devastating consequences on the mainland of Britain?

Mr. Ingram: Every time there has been a murder or a bombing attempt, it has been said from the Dispatch Box—we cannot repeat it often enough—that there are brave men and women in the RUC, the Garda Siochana and the security forces north and south of the border. Over recent weeks, they have stopped major bombing attempts in Northern Ireland and, most recently, in Great Britain. They have our heartfelt thanks for all their efforts in that regard.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I reiterate how pleased we are that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not here today. I am sure that the Minister agrees that her presence in Northern Ireland, together with the Prime Minister, underlines the commitment of all hon. Members in the Chamber to a peaceful resolution to the talks. In that spirit, will the Minister encourage the Unionist politicians to consider seriously taking up their places on the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body, given that there is no cost to them in doing so and that it would enhance their influence enormously in north-south questions which they consider to be of great importance—and I agree with their assessment?

Mr. Ingram: I will not comment on where I would rather the Secretary of State was, but I am sure that what she is doing is immensely important. That is what we have been talking about today. The hon. Gentleman's serious point is a matter for individual political parties. I am sure that the Ulster Unionist party will have heard the hon. Gentleman's sentiments and will have taken careful note of them.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am sure that all hon. Members must want peace in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the Minister and the Secretary of State for their hard work in pursuit of peace. Does he accept that peace must be built on solid foundations? During the talks, Sinn Fein-IRA, among others, has continued to talk peace while it has—week in, week out—been involved in

punishment beatings as well as some murders, as the Minister knows. Will he reassure the House that he will not pursue peace at any price?

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that two parties participating in the talks were removed from the proceedings because it was adjudged that they had breached the Mitchell principles. Those parties were readmitted to the talks by the other participants on the basis of the best available security advice—from the security forces and the Chief Constable—about their actions as political parties with links with paramilitary and terrorist groups.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I begin by wishing, on behalf of Opposition Front Benchers, all those involved in the final stage of the talks process well in their search for a successful outcome before tomorrow's deadline. The Conservative party, as much as all the participating parties, would welcome a settlement.
In the heads of agreement that were issued—and apparently supported—by the Government on 12 January, the north-south relationships of strand 2 were to be essentially consultative and accountable to the new Northern Ireland assembly. Judging by the reaction of the Ulster Unionist and Alliance parties, it seems that the Mitchell paper issued this week has resurrected the idea that was rejected long ago of north-south bodies with executive powers. Why do the Government appear to have changed their position on that issue? Do they now favour a council of Ministers which will have executive powers and be completely independent of an assembly?

Mr. Ingram: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said in wishing every success to the current discussions—I am sure that that view is echoed throughout the House. He asks a specific question about discussions that are taking place as he asks the question and I seek to answer it—the matter is currently being debated by the participants round the table. He will be only too well aware that Senator Mitchell asked talks participants not to disclose the contents of his paper, so that it did not become the basis of a media circus rather than the focus of real discussions round the negotiating table. We are at a tense and sensitive time in the process, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman await the outcome of the negotiations—I am sure that he will welcome any resolution that is arrived at round the table.

Electoral Fraud

Shona McIsaac: What steps are being taken in Northern Ireland to combat electoral fraud. [36894]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): On 31 July 1997, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State established a review of electoral procedures in Northern Ireland. That review is due to report this summer, and will take into account the Northern Ireland forum and Northern Ireland Select Committee recommendations. Northern Ireland officials and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland are also participating in the Home Secretary's working party on electoral procedures.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As there may be a referendum in Northern Ireland as well


as European elections, will he estimate when the changes—specifically those mentioned in the Northern Ireland Select Committee report on electoral malpractice—will be implemented?

Mr. Ingram: That raises an important issue, not only because of the referendum, but because of future elections, as my hon. Friend said. The issues are fairly complex, which is why the review is taking place. It would be wrong for me to give a precise timetable, other than to say that we are urgently considering such matters as the way in which the electoral returning officer would process applications for absent voters. That is one of the Select Committee's concerns that we are addressing immediately.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware how important these matters will be in future, perhaps in the near future. Is he aware that 88 per cent. of those on the electoral list are registered with the car registry for driving licences in Coleraine? If that is taken into account, it could ease the time scale for voting. Will the Minister take that into account, in considering identification, for instance?

Mr. Ingram: As I have said, we are considering, by way of review, the entire procedure. We are taking into account the recommendations from the Northern Ireland Forum and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Specific recommendations and assessments of ways in which this matter can best be handled will always be taken on board. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's observation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibilities for political development, who has direct responsibility for dealing with this matter.

Security Situation

Mr. Richard Spring: What her current assessment is of the security situation. [36896]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The current security situation remains tense, and terrorist incidents such as last night's horrific murder of Mr. Trevor Deeney continue to cause anxiety and fear among the community. They are clearly being perpetrated by those who want to see the current talks process destroyed in order to prevent the people of Northern Ireland from enjoying the benefits that a lasting peace can bring. There must be no retaliation for this murder: to do so would lead only to another escalation of violence and loss of innocent lives.
The security forces remain on full alert to prevent further terrorist attacks and the Royal Ulster Constabulary continues to investigate those crimes that have taken place. Every effort will be made to bring those responsible to justice.

Mr. Spring: During this difficult time, will the Minister pay tribute to the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining order in the Province? In any further consideration of the future of the RUC, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that no consideration is undertaken that would involve damaging the morale of those brave and dedicated officers in the RUC who do such a fine job in the Province?

Mr. Ingram: I commented earlier on the fine and brave work that the men and women of the RUC do—as well

as those in the Garda Siochana and other serving members of the security forces, north and south of the border. We could include also those who serve elsewhere in the interface with terrorists, in the Prison Service and other areas.
It is important that the dedication and commitment to duty shown over 25 years or more by the RUC is fully recognised. That is why I am closely engaged in discussions and points of contact with the Police Federation and the superintendents' association and, of course, with the Chief Constable and his senior officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ann Clwyd: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 April.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): I have been asked to reply.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today in Northern Ireland involved in the peace talks. My right hon. Friend has shown that he is committed and determined to reach an agreement. I am sure that the whole House would want to send its best wishes to my right hon. Friend, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to all those who are involved in efforts to bring about a peaceful and long-term settlement.
The further killing last night reminds us of the many people who have died and the terrible price paid by the community and the difficulties faced by our security and emergency forces in Northern Ireland. That underlines the importance of the task in hand—to reach agreement. A peaceful settlement is what the House would wish, and that is what the country wants.

Ann Clwyd: May I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the sincere hope of everybody in the House that those involved in the peace negotiations will be able to reach a lasting agreement so that the people of Northern Ireland can live in peace and harmony with their neighbours, regardless of creed and regardless of nationality?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House has signified that it completely shares those views. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has held a series of meetings with the participants in the talks. He will be meeting the Taoiseach and other parties again later today. My right hon. Friend continues to believe that tomorrow's deadline for an agreement can be reached provided that there is good will and commitment, and sincere negotiations on all sides.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on to the Prime Minister in Belfast the support of the official Opposition as he seeks to bring to a successful conclusion 22 months of negotiation, in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have participated? Will he also pass on to the


Prime Minister our sincere hopes that it will be possible to reach a peaceful settlement that is acceptable to the political parties at the talks and to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box. I am happy to pass on the support of the official Opposition. I am delighted to do so. The Prime Minister knows—today's Question Time has confirmed this—that all decent and right-thinking people want the process to reach a peaceful and successful conclusion.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that it remains the Government's policy that any settlement will be in accordance with the principles of the triple lock, whereby, before the settlement is put to a referendum of the people, it should have the agreement of the two Governments and the backing of the majority of political parties in Northern Ireland?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The principle of consent must, and will, underlie any agreement. The Prime Minister has made it clear that nothing will happen to the people of Northern Ireland without their agreement. There have to be suitable cross-border arrangements. There has to be basic equality and fairness for all. These are the principles. Of course words and detail matter, but in the end it is down to good will, good faith, patience and determination. There is nothing here that cannot be resolved if there is a desire to do so.

Mr. Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend will know of the new tram link system in Croydon, which is due for completion in November 1999. We are all aware of the welcome news of the renaissance of the London tube and the emergence of new democracy through the Greater London Authority. Can the constituents of Croydon look forward to an integrated transport system for London that will link up the new tram ways in London to the new, reinvigorated tube system for the capital?

The Deputy Prime Minister: That will be the intention of the White Paper on an integrated transport system, which we hope to publish and bring before the House in early June.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach carry with them the hopes of all the people of the British Isles for success in their quest for peace in Belfast. Surely by now everyone must understand that, after 30 years of conflict, this is not only the best chance for peace that we have: it could also be the last chance that we have for yet another generation. In those circumstances, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, whatever the price of compromise, the price of failure is greater? Does he further agree that, now that 80 per cent. of the agreement has been put in place, it would be unforgivable—and unforgiven—for any party not to find the final compromises to achieve success?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will agree very much with that statement. It is about agreement. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has

considerable experience and knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland and is listened to carefully on this matter. Therefore I am happy to confirm that what he said is exactly the position. As I said to the shadow Leader of the House, the principles are firmly in place. All the efforts of the participants must now be to reach an agreement on the basis of the principles that I have just outlined.

Mr. Bob Laxton: I welcome the progress that has been made on the creation of regional development agencies in England. After 18 years or more of centralised power, we have an opportunity to disperse power in this country. I particularly welcome the role taken by local authorities and the business community in developing RDAs in the east midlands. What progress would my right hon. Friend like to see in making RDAs truly accountable through an electoral process?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will be aware from many debates that I have a clear view on regional development agencies. I want RDAs to be introduced—as they are being introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. I also want them to be accountable. I would like to see the proposed regional chambers in the regional government context. That is what democratic accountability is about. The House has to be convinced of that matter. We want to discuss with people in each of the regions their attitudes towards these matters. Economic instruments need to be democratically accountable. That is my view.

Mr. John Hayes: Precisely what support are the Government giving to hard-pressed arable farmers in my constituency in south Lincolnshire, and across Britain?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As with education and health, and as the relevant Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box, we have been able to give considerably more resources to rural areas, as well as to education and health, than were given by the previous Administration—despite inheriting a mess in all those areas after 18 years of Tory government.

Ms Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that drug-related crime in my constituency has more than doubled in the past two years, and that class A drug seizures have also more than doubled in that period? The estimated street value of heroin sold in Luton is now running at more than £5 million a year. Will he join me in welcoming the eight additional police officers being recruited to Luton to tackle this and other crime problems; and can he assure me that the Crime and Disorder Bill will enable tough action to be taken on drug-related crime?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that the legislation will help, but other forthcoming reports will also be relevant. I welcomed the fall in crime reported yesterday, but it remains of great concern that violent crime continues to increase.
As for drugs, our appointment of a drugs tsar was a step in the right direction; a report due to appear before the House in April or thereabouts will deal with these points.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), and of the recent report by accountants Touche Deloitte to the effect that there was not much prospect of profit in milk production, and of the Agriculture Minister's illuminating comment in the House that he believed there was little chance of farming avoiding a long-term decline, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether dairy farming has a place in his and the Prime Minister's vision of cool Britannia?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is clear from our actions that farming has an important part to play in Labour's programmes. Some of the difficulties in today's farming industry—beef, for example—can be traced directly to the inactivity of the Tory party. Some of the problems of dairy farming are due to the deregulation of milk and dairy farming. We inherited these problems as a result of the Tories' inactivity as regards farming.

Anthrax

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What were the sources of information received by Her Majesty's Government on 5 March on the threats by Iraq to smuggle anthrax into the United Kingdom.

The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in a reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 24 March 1998 at column 179, it is not the Government's policy to disclose sources of specific information. Any report is carefully assessed in the context of the full picture of all available information.

Mr. Dalyell: Bluntly, the source was Mossad, was it not?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Bluntly, the House would not expect me to go into detail about our intelligence or its sources. That, as I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, would damage our national interest and place our sources at risk. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the policy pursued by all Governments.

Engagements

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given the right hon. Gentleman's admission that a minimum wage will destroy jobs and the Trades Union Congress forecast of 200,000 job losses in manufacturing industry, how does he reconcile the rhetoric of welfare to work with the reality that the Government are set to deliver work to welfare on an horrific scale?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman talks about small numbers of manufacturing jobs, important though they are, when the Conservative Government were responsible for the loss of 2 million jobs in the manufacturing sector, which we have to deal with.
Under the wages councils legislation, before the previous Administration abolished wages councils, I was one of those who received the minimum wage when working as a commis chef in hotels. So that Conservative Members do not misunderstand, I should explain that a commis chef is a trainee chef and has no political significance whatever, although I am not sure that that is what the hotel manager thought. We should remember that what we are doing about fair employment rights will be welcomed by millions of workers.
The advice that the hon. Gentleman has been given to ask that question is probably as inaccurate as that which he gave Jonathan Aitken when he was his adviser. He expressed himself in the exaggerated language that he used as chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students before it was disbanded by Norman Tebbit for being too right-wing.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: How can I follow that?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the channel tunnel could and should carry much more freight traffic? If so, will the Government consider every practical means of increasing such traffic through the tunnel?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, I certainly believe that. I see a great future for freight, especially through the channel tunnel to Europe. In the past six months, I have been actively involved in renegotiating the channel tunnel agreement—it is not very good; it was negotiated by the previous Administration. We shall make announcements about those matters shortly, in the White Paper and on the channel tunnel rail link, as I promised the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the Deputy Prime Minister's answer on manufacturing, has the right hon. Gentleman read the rather alarming report published by the Engineering Employers Federation on manufacturing in the west midlands? Will he join me and his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), the parliamentary private secretary to the Foreign Secretary, in saying that interest rates must be reduced to preserve manufacturing? The only way to reduce interest rates is by ending the political situation whereby the Bank of England is a halfway house: it is neither independent, nor fully controlled by the Government, as interest rates and the inflation rate have been set for purely political ends.

The Deputy Prime Minister: The previous Administration's record on manufacturing leaves a lot to be desired.
As to interest rates and the independence of the Government, I recall when interest rates doubled in a night under a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Conservative Government desperately tried to stave off exit from the exchange rate mechanism. We are more concerned with the long-term running of our economy than with the short-term boom and bust that we got for 18 years under the Tory party. That argument was well tested in the election; the hon. Gentleman had a majority of 238, with a notional 10 per cent. swing to Labour. It may be a case of "hair today, gone tomorrow".

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: With the Greater London referendum fast approaching, will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure a massive yes vote in London—yes for a mayor and yes for an authority? Does he agree that it was typical and historically appropriate that Tory hereditary peers voted against the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, and therefore snubbed the idea of democracy for Londoners?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I strongly support returning choice to Londoners so that they can decide on their own government. Under the last Administration, they had no choice. The last Administration abolished the local government—the Greater London council—with no consultation whatever.
My hon. Friend's point is entirely valid. It is a bit of a cheek for Tory backwoodsmen in the House of Lords to vote against giving the people of London a right to vote on the issue. I believe that, on 7 May, the people will vote for an elected mayor and an elected local government. That is the choice that we are giving them—a radical choice. I look forward to a resounding yes on 7 May, and another U-turn from the Tory party as it begins to support us.

Nuclear Deterrence

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards nuclear deterrence.

The Deputy Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is so familiar with Labour party documents owing to his past experience, let me refer him to page 38 of Labour's manifesto, which sets out our policy on the issue. We put that manifesto to the British people on 1 May. It gave us the largest parliamentary majority of the century—and, I assume, the fewest Tory Members elected to any Parliament in the same period.

Dr. Lewis: I realise that, in view of his own deplorable past support for the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament, the Deputy Prime Minister finds it difficult to say that he approves of nuclear deterrence. I have no doubt that he will follow the precedent set by his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) by emulating the evasive and slippery techniques of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and referring to my political activities in the Labour party in the 1970s.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister simply answer one question? If, now that the danger of Russian nuclear aggression has receded, the Government appreciate nuclear deterrence, do they admit that they were wrong to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the threat from the Soviet Union at the time of the cold war, when the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister all supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?

The Deputy Prime Minister: That was an interesting question, but it was not truthful and not worth answering.

Mr. Harry Cohen: As my right hon. Friend will know, last year in Helsinki

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to begin further strategic arms reduction talks—the START 3 process, following the ratification of START 2—with the aim of cutting the number of nuclear weapons by 2007. If, as seems likely, the British Government say that this is a bilateral matter between America and Russia, can my right hon. Friend say when he expects Britain to make a start on nuclear disarmament negotiations?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we are re-examining those very matters in our strategic defence review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has answered questions, and a statement will be made to the House at the appropriate time. It will be made by my right hon. Friend, as I am sure the House would expect.

Engagements

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Audit Commission report published last month confirms that my borough of Southwark—the second most deprived borough in the country, where Labour has run education since the war—is at the bottom of the secondary school attainment tables, although it spends far more than the most deprived borough in the country. Today's Treasury figures show that, in the past year and the coming year, the Government will have spent less of our national wealth on education than the Tories. Is it not clear that, at local level, Labour does not deliver value for money, and at national level it simply does not deliver the money?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am afraid that, yet again, that is not consistent with the truth. I see that the hon. Gentleman is holding up a copy of a national newspaper; I hope he will forgive me if I say that it does not necessarily contain the truth.
I note that, when commenting on the amount of resources given to education and health, Liberal Democrats constantly call for an extra £1.1 billion in the first two years. We have given more than £2 billion to health and almost £850 million to education. That is more than was ever promised by the Liberal Democrats, and it is certainly more than was envisaged in the previous Administration's expenditure programme. It is still too early to make a proper judgment on the balance of resources as between all expenditure. It is over the period of five years that the electorate will make that decision, and I have no doubt that it will return us with a resounding yes.

Mr. Chris Pond: In this 50th anniversary year of the national health service, which was established by a Labour Government against Tory opposition, will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to remind the British public that another great British institution, the national minimum wage, will be introduced by a Labour Government and that it is still opposed, as we have heard today, by the Tories?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is worth repeating the history which shows that the Tories bitterly opposed the establishment of a national health service. In their last years in office they claimed that it was one of their ideas, although few of them use it. I shall leave that aside.


It was a truly national health service committed to a socialist principle—treatment based on need and not ability to pay. I have always thought that that was the greatest experiment ever conducted in this country. Millions of people have benefited from it and we can rightly claim it as our own. If there was one thing that a Labour Government did that fully justifies the Labour movement it was the establishment of the national health service—and now we have the establishment of a national minimum wage.

Dr. Vincent Cable: With the formation of the Euro X committee by European Union countries that will form the first wave of EMU to co-ordinate economic policy in the EU, could the Deputy Prime Minister explain precisely the areas of economic policy making from which British Ministers will be excluded in this phase?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It is clear, and I think that the Prime Minister has made it clear from time to time, as has the Chancellor, that there are no areas of economic decision making from which the Government will be excluded in the EU.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Government's commitment to education as our number one political priority is a commitment that we expect all local education authorities to adhere to and respect? By contrast to such a commitment, may I tell him that the new Conservative administration on Essex county council in this its first year is scandalously planning to spend £3.5 million below the Government's SSA for education? That means that the successful music schools in my constituency face cuts of 70 per cent. Does that not demonstrate that, where and when the Tory party gets its hands on political power, whether at national or local level, it always cuts education because the Tories simply do not believe that it is important?

The Deputy Prime Minister: We should put on record the fact that our local authority settlement was about £835 million for education. Every pound was funded in full by the Government, so there was no necessity to cut any services to provide extra for education. Spending caps were designed to allow local authorities to put all the money that was given to them into education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to all local authorities making it clear that he expected them to do precisely that. Essex received £497 million, which is £27 million more than in 1997–98. That is an increase of almost 6 per cent.
Most authorities have followed the Government's lead, but authorities that do not will be held accountable by their electorates. It is quite clear that Essex gave education a low priority, despite what we hear from Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, and it has chosen to deny the

people what we intended them to have—more money for education. Our No. 1 priority is education, education, education.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us the answer to this: will he act now to save the green belt in Hertfordshire, as requested by Hertfordshire county council last week?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Of course, I have to wait for the judgment or the statement by Hertfordshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] I do not think that the House would expect me to comment without having seen what the local authority has to say about the matter. We have made it absolutely clear—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but an announcement by a Tory Member is not necessarily the view of the Hertfordshire local authority. It would be proper for me to receive a proper communication. I assume that even the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) would not disagree with that.
When I receive it, I will give it the proper consideration that is involved in these matters, but I have to say that the Opposition have had a very elastic policy as to what the proportion of building should be on brown-field and green-field sites: it has varied, basically, from 50 per cent, to 60 per cent., to 66 per cent., to 73 per cent—and I think it has now fallen back to 66 per cent. I await the next announcement.

Mr. Bill Michie: On the day that this House adjourns for the easter break, should we not remember the millions of workers in this country who do not have statutory holiday entitlement? Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome, as I do, today's announcement by the Government to start consultation on the European workplace directive in order that many workers in this country will for the first time have the right to paid holidays?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what we will do and it is another manifesto election pledge that we will carry out. To be fair, good employers give their workers decent holidays, and better companies sometimes do better than that. These regulations will be an important step to turning bad employers into better ones and to giving working people the decent terms and conditions that we all deserve. All that some Tories want to do, apparently, is block us in government achieving those objectives. We await the debates and discussions that will take place in the House, but it is interesting to note that the Tories would fight an election on the rallying cry, "Vote Tory and we will take your holiday rights away."

Mr. Gary Streeter: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with last week's remarks by the Foreign Secretary that, although 20 years ago Britain was stuck in decline, today, she is dynamic, self-confident and outward-looking? To what does he attribute that remarkable transformation over the past two decades?

The Deputy Prime Minister: It shows the real effect of a new Labour Government.

National Blood Authority

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I wish to make a statement on the National Blood Authority.
Last summer, I received representations from local Members of Parliament and local doctors against the transfer from Liverpool of bulk processing and testing of blood. That had been approved by the previous Government, and was planned to be completed by 19 September 1997.
Having looked into what was happening, I decided to appoint Professor John Cash, then president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and former director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, to conduct an independent review of the proposed transfer. Professor Cash's review was welcomed by the chairman of the National Blood Authority, Sir Colin Walker.
On 9 September, Professor Cash submitted to me an urgent interim report confirming that there had been a serious breakdown of trust between the National Blood Authority and many local people and clinicians in Liverpool. He also advised that the rationale of the original decision to move the service from Liverpool remained unproven, but that the rundown of the Liverpool centre had gone so far that, for reasons of patient safety, it should go ahead. He recommended that an independent user group should be set up to monitor the service, and that a new leader be appointed for the Liverpool blood centre. I accepted those interim recommendations, while bitterly regretting that the original transfer decision had gone so far that it was unsafe to stop it.
Professor Cash submitted a draft final report, which was passed to the National Blood Authority for comment. Points made by the NBA were considered by Professor Cash before he submitted his final report to me. Today I am publishing his final report, which presents a damning indictment of the NBA's treatment of the Liverpool blood centre and the clinicians it serves.
Professor Cash concluded: that, over the past three years, the blood transfusion service based in Liverpool had been very severely damaged; that the position at the centre remained far from satisfactory; that it would continue to under-perform unless further action was taken; and that there was a serious crisis and widespread loss of confidence in the National Blood Authority by Merseyside and north Wales clinicians, hospital blood bank medical and laboratory scientific officers and the general public.
In the light of what he discovered in Liverpool, with my agreement Professor Cash extended his review to consider certain aspects of the general performance of the National Blood Authority. He concluded that many of the concerns that had emerged in Merseyside and north Wales were also evident in Oxford and East Anglia. A number of issues of wider concern about the overall management of the blood service applied across the country. All the evidence pointed to a conclusion that the NBA was failing to maintain appropriate operational connections with many of its management teams.
Professor Cash also concluded that the chairman of the board had often, perhaps perforce, been too close to the day-to-day operational aspects of the national blood

service, and on occasions appeared to have been misinformed or to have misunderstood briefing that he received. There appeared to be a disturbing isolation of NBA headquarters from operational realities. Instructions had been inappropriately researched and not subject to effective consultation.
Since 1995, the national blood service has been exposed to a central management structure and a command and control culture that seemed to have insufficient regard for the views of customers and staff, and the interface between patients and the service. Professor Cash also drew attention to shortcomings in the arrangements within the NHS Executive, the Department of Health and user groups for monitoring the performance of the blood service.
Having considered Professor Cash's report and other representations about the performance of the NBA, I called in Sir Colin Walker, the chairman of the National Blood Authority, to say that I was concerned about the overall performance of the authority, and that, as a general principle, I believed that those at the top of an organisation had to take responsibility for it. I explained that, in view of the extra difficulties that the blood service is likely to face, I was not confident, in the light of past performance, that it was in the interests of the NHS for him to remain as chairman of the NBA.
Discussions have subsequently taken place between my officials and solicitors acting on behalf of Sir Colin Walker. He has refused to resign, so today I have dismissed him. I have appointed in his place Mr. Mike Fogden, the chief executive of the Employment Service under the previous Government. Mr. Fogden's appointment was carried out with the agreement of Sir Len Peach, Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Professor Cash made a series of recommendations about the future of the blood service in Liverpool. While pointing out potential risks to patients, he does not rule out reversing all or some of the transfer of services to Manchester. He recommends that the performance be monitored closely, and the position reviewed after one year's operation.
Professor Cash strongly recommends that, in the meantime, an action plan should be developed by the blood service, the north-west region of the NHS and Liverpool university medical school to upgrade the services in the Liverpool centre by such possible measures as the establishment of a regional stem cell service and a regional tissue bank, arrangements for specialist registrar training in haematology and transfusion medicine, and reviewing the development of the zonal reagent unit.
Professor Cash said that the Liverpool centre should be upgraded physically; new management arrangements should be put in place; more effort should be put into attracting and retaining top-quality staff; better consultative services should be available for doctors in the area; and there should be a drive to recruit more donors. I accept all Professor Cash's recommendations.
I have already appointed a transition director, Professor Bellingham, who is working to ensure that confidence in the centre is rebuilt. I have also established an independent clinical user group. I said in September that I wanted to maintain and improve blood services for the people of Merseyside and north Wales, and that remains my goal.
The new chairman's first task will be to implement those recommendations and to consider urgently the broader changes that are clearly needed in the National Blood Authority.
During a major reorganisation of their work, the staff of the blood service have worked very hard and effectively to continue to deliver a secure service to the clinicians whom they supply with blood and blood products. They—and 2 million blood donors in England—have done us proud. Both donors and staff deserve a new and better lead from the top. Under this Government, they are going to get it.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in telephoning me earlier today to give me the outline of his statement, rather than delivering it within the usual time limits.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important aspect of his statement is a belief that the medical profession's and public's confidence in delivery of blood services should be restored? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that the original reforms were not driven merely by a desire to cut costs?
Is it not true that—with delivery of blood services increasing at about 4 per cent. per annum—proper delivery of services could have yielded savings, which were earmarked to go straight back into the national health service? Is it not a fact that the original reforms were underpinned by a belief that, if duplication and administration costs had been saved, an extra £10 million might have been available to plough back into delivering primary care services? The savings were never made.
Is it not implicit in the Secretary of State's statement that we are dealing not so much with a defect in the structure of the National Blood Authority, as currently constituted, as with a chronic defect in its management and leadership? The right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned operational connections and the management team. The defect must be in leadership and in the management team. If it was not such a defect, I have absolutely no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would take action to deal with the real defect in service delivery—frankly, by going back to the drawing board, and starting all over again.
As I said, it is essential to restore the total confidence of the public and of the medical profession in the services provided by the NBA. Will the Secretary of State therefore reconsider two passages in his statement? First—referring to Professor Cash and his recommendations on the future of the blood service in Liverpool—the right hon. Gentleman said:
While pointing out potential risks to patients, he does not rule out reversing all or some of the transfer of services to Manchester. He recommends that the performance be monitored closely and the position reviewed after one year's operation.
Some paragraphs later, the Secretary of State went on:
I also want to reassure the people of Merseyside today that the safety and supply of their blood services is now and will continue to be maintained.
Those two statements seem to be contradictory. If the Secretary of State believes that there are substantial grounds—or any grounds—for thinking that services are not properly run, effectively managed or somehow unsafe,

the entire matter will have to go straight back into the melting pot. If we are dealing with potentially unsafe practices, a year is far too long to wait for a review.
Implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's comments must be a belief that the basic structure is sound. If that is so, it must be entirely right for the practices of the new management—those of us who know Mike Fogden have great confidence in his ability to grip the situation—to be reviewed. If we are dealing with unsafe practices, they cannot possibly be left for a year.
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his closing words on the reaction among user groups, blood donors and the Haemophilia Society. The fact that some user groups and donors felt pretty remote from the system, when their contribution to it is absolutely crucial, was one of the perceived defects of the previous management.
Bearing in mind the way in which the right hon. Gentleman presented his statement, I shall not comment on his condemnation of command and control cultures, tempting though that may be. On several occasions, he has been commendably frank in deploring the leaking of statements. It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Speaker, and I cannot believe that it has escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice, that the words that he used in today's statement, which I welcome, bear an uncanny similarity to a report in today's Evening Standard to an extent that would stretch beyond credulity even the most naive person's belief in the theory of coincidence.

Mr. Dobson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the report. He is quite right in saying that, particularly on Merseyside, and generally, the confidence of clinicians who rely on the blood service for the blood supply to permit them to carry out the operations that they need to carry out, the confidence of patients on whom the clinicians carry out those operations, and the confidence of the donors on whom the blood service relies, must be our principal concern. I hope that the changes that I am in the process of making fulfil that; they are certainly intended to.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of Mr. Mike Fogden's appointment. It is essential that all those connected with the National Blood Authority and the blood service get behind Mr. Fogden in bringing about the improvements that everyone wants.
I would not suggest for a minute that the blood service does not need reorganisation and certain structural changes to improve it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the biggest problem has been the management and leadership behind those changes. My own view is that we must, with all such things, try to keep structural change to a minimum. However, there are clearly faults in the reporting process in the national blood service through to the National Blood Authority, the National Health Service Executive and the Department of Health, so some minor structural and reporting changes may need to be made if we are to bring about the changes we want.
On the question of safety of blood supplies on Merseyside, my reluctant agreement to the transfer of the service from Liverpool to Manchester was based on the advice of Professor Cash that it would be less safe for patients if the Liverpool centre continued both processing and testing. So far, monitoring suggests that arrangements are safe. I expect them to remain safe; that is the object of the exercise. We need to see whether, on balance, after


a year's operation, both the safety and the general effectiveness of the service on Merseyside would be substantially improved by the return of some or all of it from Manchester to Liverpool.
I say to the 2 million people who are blood donors, "We depend on you." Our service is virtually unique in the world, in that people freely give their blood for the benefit of others. It is up to those of us with any responsibility for the service to ensure that all their voluntary effort is put to best use, that none of it is wasted, and that the good will that they put into the system is not squandered by other people.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement and decisive action. His decision vindicates the very hard work of campaigners who fought so hard to preserve Liverpool's centre of excellence. I am delighted to hear today's news. Does he agree that the situation left in the National Blood Authority means that one centre in Manchester is conducting testing and processing on behalf of 7 million people and more than 35 hospitals throughout the entire north-west and some of north Wales? Will he assure the House that the monitoring that he will carry out over the next 12 months will not only take account of the specific needs of Liverpool and Merseyside, but will deal with the over-centralisation of the National Blood Authority, a process set in train by the previous Government on the pretext of rationalisation?

Mr. Dobson: I confirm that the only blood centre in the north-west that undertakes both processing and testing is now in Manchester. I have always had my doubts about the sense of that arrangement.
I too pay tribute to various people, including my hon. Friend herself and some of her colleagues on Merseyside, for their campaigning.
I must also pay tribute to the clinicians on Merseyside, who, whenever I was advised that everything was all right, got in touch with me to tell me that it was not. The National Blood Authority would come up with some new statement on what it intended to do and would tell me that the clinicians on Merseyside were satisfied. The clinicians would then tell me that they were not satisfied, and that was repeated several times. That is why I had little confidence in the people at the top of the National Blood Authority, and it is one of the reasons that at least the chairman has to go.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the prompt work by Professor Cash. We endorse the decision to replace the chairman.
Given that Labour made pre-election pledges to reverse the decision to close the Liverpool blood centre; given that representations were on the Secretary of State's desk in May last year; and given that Professor Cash took only three weeks to write his interim report, why was the appointment of the inquiry delayed until August, by which time it was too late to reverse the Liverpool decision? Had it been appointed in May, it would not have been too late.
What is the implication of the Secretary of State's decision on the centres in Cambridge, Oxford and Plymouth, which were also closed under the previous Government? Does he agree that it would be better if the

blood services were run regionally and made democratically accountable within the normal national health service structures?
Does today's announcement mean that the necessary funding will be made available to enable the National Blood Authority to do its job properly, that the authority will be service-driven and not cost-driven, that blood services will be available throughout the country when and where they are needed, and that they will be of the quality needed?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: No matter what you say, you'll never satisfy him.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Liberals appear never to be satisfied. "Eternal dissatisfaction" is their motto.
We won the election on 1 May; I took office on 3 May, and received representations about the situation in Liverpool towards the end of May. I very properly started checking whether those representations were correct. I got all sorts of advice, went back time and again, and eventually decided that some of the advice I was getting was not worth a light. That is why I then appointed Professor Cash.
My understanding is that the rundown of services in Liverpool had been going on for the best part of two years. Some people who work in Liverpool had transferred to Manchester, and some had moved there. By that time, the situation was irreversible. There was no question of any delay on our part.
The situation is as follows: we are now taking steps to improve the blood service and to re-establish public confidence in it. I have asked Mr. Mike Fogden to take a close look at what is happening, on Merseyside and nationally, and to tell me what, in his judgment and in the judgment of others, is the best thing to do. I will then consider his advice very carefully, and take decisive action on what he recommends.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Merseyside, whose views have been completely ignored by the National Blood Authority? Does he agree that we should commend for the work they have done not only hon. Members but all those in Liverpool and Merseyside—including the Liverpool Echo—who have campaigned against the decision? Will he do all he can to ensure that the status quo that existed before last year will be restored? Given the transportation difficulties between Manchester and Liverpool, the very idea of transferring the blood service from Liverpool to Manchester was one of crass stupidity.

Mr. Dobson: As I said last September and have repeated today, I bitterly regret that the advice I received from Professor Cash was that to keep the Liverpool blood service in the state in which we inherited it would endanger the safety of patients on Merseyside. That was why the transfer had to go ahead. The situation is being monitored closely, and one of the things I shall be asking Mike Fogden to do is come to me after the situation has been monitored for 12 months and give me a considered view on what should be done.
However, I shall not indulge in sleight of hand and try to deceive people on Merseyside. I am not saying today that I can guarantee that the service will come back from Manchester to Liverpool, because it may not. The issue will be looked at rationally and carefully, but the trouble is that the status quo is now different from when the previous Government took the original decision to move the service from Liverpool to Manchester.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State rightly paid tribute to the many hundreds of thousands of blood donors in this country—incidentally, I wonder whether he is a blood donor. As we approach the holiday season, when there is a shortage of blood, will he give an assurance to blood donors that there is no question of any danger to donors, either in Liverpool or in any other part of the country?

Mr. Dobson: There should not be any danger to donors from donating blood to the blood service. The only reason I do not donate blood is that the blood service will not take my blood, because I have had jaundice in the past.

Maria Eagle: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today—there will be dancing in the streets of Liverpool tonight. The matter has been one of great public concern and we have massive public meetings attended by thousands of people, who I know will warmly welcome this statement.
In view of the appalling findings of the Cash report, does my right hon. Friend believe that other senior managers at the National Blood Authority should also be considering their positions—especially Mr. John Adey, the chief executive? Will he reassure me and other Labour Members that Sir Colin Walker is not walking away from this with a financial settlement?

Mr. Dobson: Taking things in reverse order, he is getting no compensation whatever.
One of the things Mr. Mike Fogden will have to do in his job as the new chairman is look at the general responsibility of people other than his predecessor for the present state of organisation in the National Blood Authority. No doubt he will come to his own sensible and, I expect, tough-minded conclusions. However, I do not have the statutory authority either to appoint or to dismiss people who are employed by any part of the national health service.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have constituents who work at the National Blood Authority site at Addenbrooke's hospital who will be directly affected by today's statement. Does he agree that it is absolutely right that the chairman should have the authority and the freedom to restructure his management team, given that distinct reservations have been expressed in Merseyside and elsewhere about the quality of administration and management in the NBA?
Following from what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, will the Secretary of State comment on Professor Cash's findings

on the transfer of services from Cambridge, Oxford and Plymouth? Obviously, I am interested in Cambridge, but these are general matters.
Furthermore, does the Secretary of State recognise that these are testing times for the national blood service? The difficult issues on which he has made announcements in the past several weeks include the theoretical, but not proven, risk of new variant CJD in blood transfusions, and therefore the importance of ensuring that policies are followed rigorously throughout the service.
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman assure those who work in the NBA that their position will be recognised as well as the greater customer focus, which I am sure the staff will find valuable in the future?

Mr. Dobson: I hope that, within the limitations of the law, the new chairman will have a free hand when considering and carrying out whatever measures he thinks necessary to re-establish public, staff and donor confidence in the blood service. The transfers involving Cambridge and, separately, Oxford were a lot further down the road, and had been completed long before we came to power. It would not be sensible for me to contemplate reversing them. The transfer from Plymouth to Bristol will not go ahead.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. These have been testing and trying times for people working in the blood service, who have been doing their job and managing to deliver safe blood supplies and blood products to the clinicians who need them, to the benefit of the patients who need them, at a time when the service has not been well managed—indeed, has been insensitively managed.
The staff have been subjected to the process of reorganisation, and it is immensely to their credit that they have managed to maintain the standards they have in extremely trying and difficult times. It was partly because I was not confident of the capacity of the leadership of the NBA that I needed to make the change, in view of the problems that might arise and the difficulties and scientific rigour that will have to be applied because of the possibility of the transfer of new variant CJD.

Mr. Derek Twigg: May I also welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and offer my support for the sacking of Colin Walker, which was the right decision?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that what happened in Liverpool directly affected areas such as mine. People in Widnes and Runcorn in north Cheshire, as well as in other parts of Cheshire, supported the Liverpool Members of Parliament and others in their campaign for the Liverpool transfusion centre.
Does my right hon. Friend share my amazement about the statement by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)? The Conservatives had all the information that my right hon. Friend has, but the difference is that he has done something about it and they did not. Some of their statements are crass, given that information about what was happening in the Liverpool transfusion service and the service as a whole was fed back at the time to Ministers in the previous Government. I really am amazed. Does he share that amazement?

Mr. Dobson: Very little amazes me about the previous Government. Obviously, I do not have access to their


records, but I understand that my immediate predecessor shared many of my concerns. It seems a pity that he did not do something about it.

Dr. Evan Harris: I certainly associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) about the approach of the Conservative party. However, I cannot share the view of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) that there will be dancing in the streets of Liverpool, given that the service is apparently not to be restored there.
As a former Oxford clinician, a current Oxford donor and, perhaps, a future Oxford patient, I must press the Secretary of State on whether there is any chance of a reversal of the move from Oxford. If the new chairman of the National Blood Authority decides that that would be in the best interests of donors, patients and clinicians, will he be allowed to recommend it, and will the Secretary of State fund it?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the statement in paragraph 13 of the report, of which he will be aware, that Professor Cash feels that the NBA press release approved by the Department of Health on 14 August, which stated that there were improved services in Oxford and Cambridge, was misleading? We have had a series of misleading statements in the services in Oxford and in other areas. There is a case for restoration of bulk processing and testing at Oxford and at Cambridge.

Mr. Dobson: I simply cannot raise false hopes, in line with the general Liberal Democrat approach to the world. The transfers affecting Oxford and Cambridge took place some time ago. If the new chairman comes to me and says that he has considered matters carefully and thinks that those decisions should be reversed, we shall have to consider seriously the proposition that he might put to us; but it would be raising false hopes to suggest that that will be the first thing on his mind. To reverse every damn thing that the previous Government did that was stupid would take all the time and money in the world, and we do not have it.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that the proposal to transfer the blood service from Plymouth to Bristol, 125 miles away, will not now go ahead. That will be warmly welcomed, not just in Plymouth but throughout Devon and Cornwall. I urge my right hon. Friend, in the further review and in re-establishing confidence in the service, to take particular account of rural areas and areas such as mine, where holiday visitors put significant additional pressure on the blood service.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the decision on Plymouth. I hope that the Plymouth blood service will continue to prosper, provide a high quality service and enable the prompt delivery of blood supplies and blood products to whomever needs them in the south-west peninsula. That is the object of the exercise.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will recall that I raised this issue several times in the House before the general election. What he has said today proves to us that what the staff told us at the time was correct,

and what the chairman and chief management told us was not only incorrect but misleading. Will my right hon. Friend consider the situation at the third centre in the north-west, the Lancaster centre, which is of particular importance to the north of Lancashire and further up in the north-west? It was an excellent centre, but it was equally affected by the changes made at the same time in Liverpool.

Mr. Dobson: I endorse my hon. Friend's point. From time to time, the National Blood Authority sought publicity, saying what an excellent job it was doing, when the money would have been better spent recruiting more donors.
The closure of the Lancaster processing facility has been completed. I hope that all the monitoring arrangements are in place, and that we can ensure that people in north Lancashire are benefiting from a good-quality, safe blood service. That is the object of the exercise. I know that Mike Fogden will enter into his new task, not quite with an open mind, because his mind is full of a commitment to improve the service and re-establish public, donor and staff confidence in it, but with the object of ensuring that the best services are available throughout the country. No doubt he will come to me with whatever propositions he feels are necessary to deliver that in the future.

Miss Geraldine Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and his decisive action. The Lancaster blood centre in my constituency was transferred to Manchester, despite sound arguments and a huge public campaign against it. Is there any possibility that that decision can be re-examined and reversed, because that would be welcomed by the people in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Lancaster and Wyre?

Mr. Dobson: I fully understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's view. I am not in the habit of leading people on. If I were to suggest that there was a likelihood of bulk processing and testing being restored to Lancaster, I would be doing just that. It may be that, in the fulness of time, changes will be made—that may be one of the answers. However, it is not particularly likely at this time. I hope that, as a result of the change I have made and the changes that I confidently expect Mr. Fogden to make, people's confidence will be restored.
Some of these things are not easily reversible. I suspect—I do not know for sure—that some of the highly trained technical and scientific staff who worked in the Lancaster centre may have transferred their homes to Manchester and be working there, with their children going to schools in Manchester. We cannot just reverse things: it is not a simple thing to do. What is crucial is whether people in north Lancashire will be getting a top-quality service. If they are not, we will have to make some changes.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May a Scot, who was involved with Professor John Cash in a previous incarnation, commend the Secretary of State for his good judgment in appointing him? I also commend my right hon. Friend for appointing Mike Fogden. As Dick Crossman's parliamentary private secretary, I can say that he is one of the few civil servants to have escaped unscathed and with flying colours in the Crossman diaries.


I have two substantive questions. First, is there not a general problem of a shortage of laboratory scientific technicians and officers? Is that not a national problem? Secondly, the Secretary of State said:
the chairman of the board had often, perhaps perforce"—
I am not sure what that means—
been too close to the day-to-day operational aspects of the NBS and on occasions appeared to have been either misinformed or misunderstood the briefing he received.
Can my right hon. Friend expand on that? It is a mind-boggling statement. I hope that the Secretary of State is right, and the solicitors are wrong.

Mr. Dobson: That is Professor Cash's wording, not mine. He had interviews with all sorts of people involved, he looked at a great deal of the written material, and he came to that conclusion. As my hon. Friend has pointed out from his vast depth of knowledge, Professor Cash is a person of immense distinction. He did a brilliant job running the Scottish blood transfusion service, and has just ceased holding the eminent position of president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh—a title for which most people in this Chamber would be willing to give their right or left arm—

Mr. Nicholls: Including you?

Mr. Dobson: Oh, certainly. I would find that an immense distinction.
I am willing to accept Professor Cash's judgment in these matters. As for Mike Fogden, it is certainly true that anybody who comes totally unscathed out of the Crossman diaries is clearly a person of greater merit than I had thought before.
It has never been brought to my attention that there is a general shortage of scientific laboratory staff in the national health service. However, it is crucial that we continually and continuously recognise their immense contribution to a top-quality, science-based health service. Those people have been badgered about and messed around, and their lives have been changed because of

management fashion. That is what makes people leave the service, and deters good people from joining it. That is why we have to make these changes.

Mr. Ben Chapman: I join my colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement. However, the steps taken in relation to the blood transfusion service in Liverpool now seem to have been wholly mistaken, on the basis of misinformation, incompetence and poor management. I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it was right that at least the chairman was dismissed. As he also said, it is right that others should consider their position.
These are not easy times for Merseyside, and they have not been for a long while. As we are trying to improve our image and fighting to retain jobs and services, we could do without negative decisions, especially when they are wholly unnecessary. I hope that my right hon. Friend will again join me in condemning the decision and its effect—albeit temporary, as I hope that all the services will be restored to Liverpool.

Mr. Dobson: When my hon. Friend has the opportunity to read Professor Cash's report, he will see that it mentions the need to consider the impact on the great city of Liverpool, and on Merseyside generally, of the transfer of any national body. The city has been run down, discarded and cast aside for far too long, and we must start reversing that process—I hope that what I have announced will be a minor contribution to that. As to people considering their position, I asked Sir Colin Walker to consider his—I think that he considered it safe, but he was wrong.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998
Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland)Act 1998
Tyne Tunnels Act 1998

British Museum (Lindisfarne Gospels)

Mr. Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington, East): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer of the Lindisfarne Gospels from the British Museum to a location in the North East Region of England.
I shall first give a brief history of the Lindisfarne gospels. They were written and illuminated at the end of the seventh century—some 1,300 years ago—by monks who had come from Ireland to establish Christianity in Britain. They were produced in commemoration of a famous saint, St. Cuthbert, in honour of God. They remain one of the greatest literary and religious masterpieces in the world.
For their first 700 years, the gospels remained happily and peaceably in the north-east of England. In the 1530s, Henry VIII's commissioners decided to take them from Durham, largely because of the value of the gold around them. I am glad that that aspect of Britain's turbulent past has gone. I doubt that the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the House will consider shortly, will deal retrospectively with the theft of the gospels from the north-east 500 years ago, much as I would like it to. We are prepared to forgive and forget, however—hence this Bill.
In the past 100 years, there have been many campaigns in the north-east for the return of the gospels. I pay tribute to the Lindisfarne gospels campaign and Richard Burg-Rust, who organised a rally in London on the day after St. Cuthbert's day this year—I had the pleasure of speaking to the rally at the British library—and a petition of 5,000 north-easterners that was presented to No. 10.
I also mention the campaign led by Councillor John McCormack and the North of England Assembly of Local Authorities, which has managed to secure agreement in principle for the temporary return of the Lindisfarne gospels to the north-east for the millennium, with a digital version to which people, scholars and students alike, will have access—they will be able to study these great works of Christian literature. Last but not least, I also pay tribute to the Bishop of Durham, who led a debate in another place last Thursday—he, too, has been a strong supporter. I commend the efforts of all those people.
I believe that the Government have made serious and strong attempts in the past 10 months to recognise the crucial role that the regions will play in the nation's future. They have rightly done so on economic grounds, but I do not think that it would be incompatible to do so on the grounds of culture and identity.
I believe that the Bill would ensure that the culture and identity of the northern region of England would flourish as a result of the return of the gospels, which are a potent symbol of the north-east. It is a north-east which is equally proud of its history and confident about its future. The return of the gospels would send a message from the House that the United Kingdom is a nation of different regions. One of its great strengths is its diversity. People would recognise that if the Bill were presented today.
I realise that some hon. Members will argue against the return of the gospels. I fundamentally disagree with that argument. I respect the view of those who advance the argument, but I disagree with it.
There are many examples of national collections. The Tate gallery and the Victoria and Albert museum both have sites in parts of Britain other than London, at which

national treasures can be displayed. I do not believe that the relocation of national treasure in any way diminishes the significance of the object or objects. That happens only if we define the nation as existing only within the M25.
Before anyone shouts about the Elgin marbles—they are often referred to when I raise the case of the gospels—I would point out that, contrary to popular belief, the north-east is an integral part of the United Kingdom, not a foreign·land. There are fundamental differences between the marbles and the gospels.
I believe also that where we locate and how we display national treasures are important considerations. It is important that our treasures can be seen properly and enjoyed by millions of people. Currently, the gospels are located in a room somewhere between King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. I do not think that that location does them the justice they deserve.
The Bill deliberately does not specify a location. However, it has been suggested to me that there are many locations in the north-east where they could be displayed in a much better setting. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will agree when I refer to the mystical magic of Lindisfarne and Holy Island, where I spend my holidays. It would be a tremendous setting for the gospels.
There is also the peninsula, as it were, of the River Wear, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). It is a world heritage site. Within that peninsula is a dramatic and impressive castle, and a cathedral where the bones of St. Cuthbert lie. I think that few in the House would argue that a room in north London, an area not renowned for its panoramic views, could be in any way a better setting for the gospels than the two places I have described. There are many more suitable sites. A return of the gospels would give a tremendous boost to the identity of the north-east, and to its economy through tourism.
The Bill also provides for necessary safeguards. I am extremely conscious that the gospels are great treasures of the nation. I am sure that no Member of this place would want to see anything happen to them that potentially could damage them. Access for the experts, housing and upkeep must be properly provided. If those things cannot be done properly, I would not want to see the gospels leave their current position. However, I am confident that the north-east could provide the safeguards we require.
I referred to access by technology. If the gospels were to return to the north-east, there would still be access by means of the digital version that I mentioned. Scholars throughout the world could study them, as well as those who honour them.
I do not accept that London would somehow become a cultural desert if the gospels were to return to the ancient kingdom of Northumbria. The problem with London is that it has too many things to see. Visitors to our great capital will often comment that London is brimming with works of art, great treasures and many other attractions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) on introducing his Bill.


There is nothing personal in my opposing it. I have nothing against the north-east region of England, even though I represent a Sussex constituency. I have nothing against the Lindisfarne gospels as a student of archaeology. Indeed, they are such an important work that they should be seen in their best context. I also have nothing against the sterling work that the hon. Gentleman is doing in the "Free Deirdre" campaign. I certainly do not want my opposition to be seen as a slur on the work that he has carried out on that.
The problem is that what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do is just wrong. This is not fiction. It is real life. I speak as a long-standing member of the British Museum Society. The Bill will set a bad precedent, which would ultimately threaten the integrity of national museums across the world.
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the real importance of the Lindisfarne gospels is not as some treasure or priceless artefact that is nice to look at, but as an important illuminated manuscript in the context of early Christian literature, and an important milestone in the spread of Christianity in the dark ages across the whole of Britain, not just the north-east of England, or Holy Island.
Not all the manuscript's origins are even in the north-east of England. As the hon. Gentleman said, many of the illuminations were crafted in Ireland. The Lindisfarne gospels are notable for their combination of Celtic decoration with classical and byzantine styles, so, although they may have been collated in Lindisfarne in the seventh century, other parts of the British Isles may have an equal claim to them.
The Lindisfarne gospels are undoubtedly special, but they should not be the only item claimed by the north-east of England. What about the treasures in the British museum? What else is important to the north-east? When will the north-east ask for the Vindolanda tablets to be returned to Northumberland? What about returning the Sutton Hoo treasures or the Mildenhall silver to the people of East Anglia? What about the return of the Hinton St. Mary mosaic to Dorset, or the return of Lindow man to Cheshire?
Before we know it, our national galleries, museums and libraries will become warehouses for empty showcases and a hotch-potch of unloved, second-tier artefacts that fail to titillate the tourists hankering after the in-your-face buzz so beloved of the creators of cool Britannia.
To use that awful word, this is all about "decontextualising". To decontextualise is to turn treasures of national and international importance into objects just to be gawped at. They are best seen in collections that recognise no arbitrary boundaries of time or place.
The Lindisfarne gospels are best seen in a national and international context. Indeed, if displayed in the likes of an internationally renowned institution such as the British library—not the British museum, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—they would provide the finest advertisement for the arts of the north-east of England, for all our nation and all other nations to see, seven days a week and free for all, for as long as the Government failed to admit that they had reneged on their promise to provide free admission to our national museums, with their woefully inadequate £2 million in the Budget.
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman should attempt to denude the British library of one of its most successful exhibits, just when it is about to be displayed, on 21 April, in the new exhibition galleries on the St. Pancras site, which has had £511 million lavished on it. That is a funny way to laud the opening of this important new building. The British library attracts many people at the moment, and will, I hope, attract many hundreds of thousands more.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the access that people from the north-east—indeed, anywhere in the country—will have through the agreement between the British library and Northumberland county council, and the electronic viewing facilities. Let us take the example of the British museum.
I have campaigned long and hard for the Elgin marbles to stay where they are. Some 1.6 million paying people visit the Acropolis in Athens each year. More than 6 million people are freely admitted to the British museum each year, where they can see the Elgin marbles as a centrepiece and in a magnificent and classical context, whereas fewer than half a million people a year visit Durham cathedral, which was one of the locations that the hon. Gentleman suggested for the Lindisfarne gospels. The British museum generously lends out thousands of items around the world each year. Currently, there is a collection of Indian art in Bombay to celebrate the 50th anniversary of independence, and a collection of Hogarth prints is in New York. The British museum and the British library successfully raise many millions of pounds from the private sector.
The Lindisfarne gospels are not in the British museum—the Bill is a flawed Bill. They have been and will be housed in the British library. There would also need to be a change—the hon. Gentleman did not touch on this—to the British Library Act 1972 to enable the gospels to be relocated. More important than anything else, it is an act of philistinism to remove important works of art and antiquities from their wider context—the rich tapestry of our heritage and cultural development—just to put them on a pedestal.
As the hon. Gentleman himself said, the Lindisfarne gospels are a treasure of the nation. It would set a bad precedent and spell the beginning of the end for the integrity of national museums everywhere if the gospels were removed. This is another example of the insidious consequences of regionalism gone mad. Ironically, it was The Guardian which once stated, in the context of the Elgin marbles, that demanding their return happened regularly in Athens—once a year in normal circumstances, and twice a year in election years. I trust that this does not mark the beginning of similar claims from other hon. Members for all manner of items of local interest to be stripped from our national museums.
It is with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman that I oppose this Bill, so that the Lindisfarne gospels can be retained in London. It is also with the greatest respect that I suggest that he concentrate on freeing Deirdre.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be helpful to know whether the speech that we have just heard was, in fact, the British


museum brief. Was it the official view of the British museum, or was it written by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)?

Madam Speaker: I do not think that that is of any importance. The hon. Gentleman made his own speech, just as all hon. Members do.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fraser Kemp, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Denis Murphy, and Mr. Jim Dobbin.

BRITISH MUSEUM (LINDISFARNE GOSPELS)

Mr. Kemp accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the transfer of the Lindisfarne Gospels from the British Museum to a location in the North East Region of England: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 172].

Orders of the Day — Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: Before calling the Home Secretary, I should inform that House that, between 7 and 9 pm, Back-Bench speeches must be limited to 10 minutes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has a simple, practical ambition: to build a safer and more responsible society. My wish is that everyone should enjoy that most basic of human rights: the right to live life free from fear and free from crime.
I will spell out the provisions of the Bill in a moment, but first I want to speak of its roots. The Bill marks out the new approach to policy making by which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister transformed my party from one of opposition to one of government. The Bill represents a triumph of community politics over detached metropolitan elites.
In the early 1980s, my party lost its way, not least by failing to listen to those whom we claimed to represent, and by failing to learn from them. My right hon. Friend broke decisively with all that and ensured that our policy making would be inspired above all by our constituents. Among many other things, that led us to a serious examination of how to reverse the apparently inexorable rise in anti-social behaviour and teenage crime.
Some pioneering councils, working with the police, contributed to that new thinking. In Coventry, the city council developed new ways of tackling alcohol-related crime and neighbourhood disorder. In Wigan, the local authority and the police introduced a model partnership scheme to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of crime. In Northumbria, a community safety strategy has made huge strides, by tackling drug-related crime and helping victims. It has also led to significant reductions in recorded crime. There are many other examples across the country.
As shadow home affairs spokesman, I built on those ideas. I was struck by the degree to which the problems and experiences of my constituents had changed since I was first elected in 1979. Then, the great bulk of my constituency case work concerned housing complaints and social security, but that changed from the early 1990s. More and more people came to me complaining of intolerable anti-social behaviour, of harassment and of intimidation. Much of the trouble was caused by children and young people who were out of control. The criminal justice system appeared to be incapable of enforcing decent standards of public behaviour on children and adults alike.
In my Blackburn constituency a few years ago, five members of a family were arrested on more than 50 occasions for offences ranging from attempted robbery to burglary, theft, criminal damage and public disorder. Convictions resulted, but, despite them and despite being evicted twice by their public landlord,


the family, in the words of the local police, continued to terrorise local residents. I saw the results of the terror produced by that family.
On the Stoke Heath estate in Coventry, two brothers terrorised their neighbourhood. The city council commendably took action. After it made legal history by winning injunctions to exclude the two men from the estate, the quality of life for residents was restored. When I visited the estate, I saw that measured by the reduction in the number of voids—dwellings that had been left empty—on it. But the injunction was then quashed by a higher court, and the brothers were allowed to return. They caused mayhem yet again. The number of voids went up, as many people took the only action that they could take within the system—they moved from the area in which they had spent their lives.
In opposition, the views of colleagues in the House brought home to me the failures of the youth justice system. Three years ago, I wrote to every Labour Member of Parliament seeking their opinions on the youth justice system in their areas. I was stunned by the response. Every Member representing an English or a Welsh constituency who replied expressed dissatisfaction with that system of youth justice.
The Bill is therefore born out of the experience of our constituents, and out of their sense of frustration with the current criminal justice system. That frustration is shared by the police and by other dedicated and skilled professionals who are expected to solve the problems, but who have been hampered by a slow, inconsistent and ineffective system.
Our manifesto spelt out the need to modify and to modernise the criminal justice system to get it working effectively. The Bill is the first major step in that process. It begins our root-and-branch reform of the youth justice system, and it will establish new ways for agencies and communities to work together to support a safer, more responsible society. It will equip the criminal justice system overall, better to respond to disorder and to protect communities from sex offenders, from drug-misusing offenders and from racist thugs.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome the Bill, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the Cambridge United supporter who was allegedly observed chanting racist abuse and has been banned from attending football matches? Is he also aware that Cambridge United was unable to prosecute because he was chanting racial abuse alone, and not with a group of people? Apparently, that is not an offence. Is it possible to change the Bill to cope with such an offence, and does he plan to do so?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a gap in the law, as is recognised throughout the House and in the other place. That gap must be plugged, and we aim to do so as quickly as possible. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we can do it in the Bill, but if we can, we will.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary referred to the promises that Labour made in opposition. As he is talking about dates, may I ask him about the pledge that the time between the arrest and the

sentencing of young offenders would be halved? Can he give any date by which he hopes to meet that pledge? Will it be before 2001, or 2002?

Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our manifesto was for a Parliament, but if he can hold on I will come to that in a moment.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As a lawyer with some experience of juvenile crime, I am very concerned about the abolition of the doli incapax rule. Given that it has stood us in good stead since the reign of Edward III, why has it suddenly become ripe for abolition?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. The concept of doli incapax was developed when the major sanction against children who offended was the death penalty. In the days when children were hanged for stealing sheep, it was probably wise for the courts to establish clearly that offenders knew that they had committed a flagrant offence, rather than being guilty of mere naughtiness. Now, the sanctions have changed entirely. Lawyers acting for offenders between the ages of 10 and 13 use the presumption of doli incapax—incapacity to commit evil—to run rings around the court system, and to avoid proper sanctions for young offenders.
Something else has changed since the reign of Edward III. I think that children now understand the difference between right and wrong at an earlier age. I believe—and I think my view is shared widely in the House—that children aged 10, 11, 12 and 13 know that when they take someone else's property, or assault someone, they are committing an offence for which they ought to be punished.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will get on with my speech. I will take an intervention from him later.
This is a substantial Bill, with consistent themes running through it. It will end the culture of excuse that has infected so many offenders and their parents. It will shift the balance of power in communities from the anti-social and the criminal to the law-abiding majority. It will put the victim first, and it will ensure that offenders understand that even so-called petty crime has a victim. It will help to rebuild community life, and to tackle social exclusion.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary think that the Bill will cut crime? If so, has he any idea by how much?

Mr. Straw: I hope that this Government will do significantly better over the next 18 years than the last Government did between 1979 and 1997. The purpose of the Bill is indeed to reduce crime and disorder, and I note—I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to say this—that the police think it will greatly assist their fight against crime.
The acting chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Allan Charlesworth, wrote to me saying:
The Crime and Disorder Bill should give us more teeth to confront the crimes on the Ravenscliffe Estate.
That is an estate in Bradford which is afflicted by serious disorder. Mr. Charlesworth said:
An increased focus on dealing with young people as citizens, victims and offenders will be extremely useful to us.
Mr. David Phillips, chief constable of Kent and chairman of the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, was reported in this morning's edition of The Daily Telegraph commenting on police efforts to combat violence. He said that those efforts were not always supported by the criminal justice system, and added that
new measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill should help make an impact.
Part I of the Bill focuses on the prevention of crime and disorder. The police, local councils and other agencies must join in partnership to implement local strategies to reduce crime and disorder. There is also a long-overdue new remedy for communities that are ground down by the chronic bullying and harassment by a selfish minority to which I referred earlier. The anti-social behaviour order adapts traditional civil and criminal procedures to tackle that serious, persistent anti-social behaviour.

Mr. Hawkins: I particularly welcome what the Home Secretary said about changes to the doli incapax rule. Does he agree that one of the main concerns of magistrates in juvenile courts is their inability to deal with the most serious young offenders?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I practised for some years at the Bar in the west midlands, and I am familiar with the Stoke Heath estate in Coventry about which he spoke earlier. Does he appreciate that, on such estates, it is the extent of serious crimes such as robbery with violence and blackmail, as well as the serious house burglaries and muggings of the elderly, that causes the greatest concern to magistrates in juvenile courts?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for this part of the measure and for his overall support. He is entirely right. He will have witnessed, as I witnessed when I sat in youth courts, persistent young offenders and, in some, although not all, cases, their lawyers running rings round the system and ensuring that the outcome reinforced the offending behaviour. The impression is built up that the youngster can get away with the crime. Rules such as doli incapax and the extraordinary rule in the Khan case, which insists that the first case involving a persistent offender should not be dealt with by the court until the last case in time is ready, create a moving target before the offender is dealt with. All those factors add up to a system that is replete with excuse, and that is what we are trying to get away from.

Dr. Lynne Jones: As currently drafted, the Bill's anti-social behaviour provision, which I welcome, allows for an order to prohibit certain behaviour. Would my right hon. Friend consider accepting an amendment in Committee to allow orders to enforce an action to remove the cause of a nuisance? I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion

1003, which has been signed by 152 hon. Members, and which calls for action on vindictive behaviour by people who grow monster hedges, or allow them to grow.

Mr. Straw: There was a sting in the tail and it turned out to be about 18 ft high. The anti-social behaviour order will tackle a great deal, but it is about anti-social behaviour, not about large hedges. I know that they cause problems, but, to some extent, they should be dealt with by planning legislation and by proceedings in the civil courts in terms of the law on nuisance.
I shall ask the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), to look carefully in Committee at the first part of my hon. Friend's point. I recognise that it is a serious matter, but I do not want to hold out a promise that cannot be met.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to the question by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), may I ask whether it is true that much of the disorder that the Bill addresses will not have featured in the statistics because, until now, there has been no point in reporting some of the juvenile crime, as the legal system in incapable of dealing with it? Everyone knows that, including the police. The measures will make a big difference to the quality of people's lives, but they will not necessarily have a big impact on the statistics.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is interesting that, in the previous period, although recorded crime went down, which is very welcome, disorder incidents logged by police at the point where calls were made to them—which is different from recording a specific offence—rose significantly. That is one of the reasons why the police greatly welcome the Bill: it deals with a huge area of bad behaviour that was not properly captured by the official crime statistics.
One of the most pernicious forms of crime is that motivated by racial hatred. New racially aggravated harassment, assault and public order offences will provide tougher penalties and greater protection for all our communities.
In the other place, we added a further new offence—that of racially aggravated criminal damage. That new offence sends a clear signal that we are determined to deal with criminals who not only damage property, but inspire fear and resentment with their hateful vandalism. The Bill will require courts to treat evidence of racial motivation or hostility as an aggravating factor in any other offence and to impose correspondingly higher penalties.
Nothing better illustrates the failures of our criminal justice system than the sight of young offenders committing crime after crime with, as we have all agreed, no effective intervention for months or even years. The Bill therefore includes measures to end unacceptable delays in the youth justice system, taking forward our pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked me what the time scale is. As with all our manifesto pledges, we will be judged on the time scale of a Parliament. When we first came into office, I first sought to discover how long it was taking to process a


persistent young offender. I could not find the answer because the previous Administration kept no figures about the time that it took.
Therefore, we first had to do a benchmarking exercise. At the beginning of the Parliament, it took 142 days to process a persistent young offender. We aim to get that down to 71 days. Enormous effort has already gone into that, and I am pleased that some areas have already made significant progress.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Labour's pledge to halve the time was an effective election slogan. I think that the right hon. Gentleman now recognises that it is difficult to achieve and to tell exactly what time we are halving. Does he recognise, as I think he does, that we are dealing really with young offenders—they may be over or under 18—who commit 10, 20, 50, 100 or 150 offences in six months? How is he going, by that slightly artificial statistic creation, to show whether he is having an impact on that problem?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should give us greater credit for what we committed ourselves to in the manifesto than simply describing it as an effective slogan. To the extent that it was an effective slogan, it was effective because it dealt with a serious defect in the criminal justice system.
We decided to highlight that commitment both because it is very important to halve the time that it takes to deal with persistent offenders, and to engage the whole criminal justice system and the practitioners within it in the need to reduce delays. I do not underestimate the difficulties in meeting that commitment and I am well aware that it will be a poor career move for me if I fail to do so, but I am on the case.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) raises the issue of spree offenders. Most areas have them. They may not have a record, so they do not come in the category of persistent offender for statistical purposes. We are determined that spree offenders should be fast tracked, but, because it is difficult to define them for statistical purposes, they will have to be identified locally. We are giving guidance to local organisations about how to do that.
The Bill will ensure earlier, more effective intervention to nip offending in the bud. It lays down that, for the first time, the principal aim of everyone working within the youth justice system will be to prevent offending by children and young people.
Child safety orders and powers for local authorities to establish local child curfews will protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime. The Bill reinforces the crucial role of parents. Parenting orders will help and support those who are genuinely trying to control their children's unacceptable behaviour. Sanctions will be available for the minority who stubbornly evade their parental responsibilities.
When children first offend, the response should be quick, firm and consistent. The Bill replaces cautioning for young people with a statutory final warning scheme. Warnings will normally be followed by intervention to tackle the causes of the youngster's offending. The Bill also makes young offenders properly responsible for their actions by the abolition of the legal fiction of doli incapax.
New reparation and action plan orders will bring young offenders face to face with the human consequences of their crimes and require them to make amends to their victims. Another defect of the current system, in addition to the delays, is that too often the young offender thinks that their crime has no victim, or that they are the victim and the person whom they robbed or assaulted has no feelings and that no regard should be paid to them. The Bill builds on the principles of restorative justice, benefiting victims as well as rehabilitating offenders.

Sir Robert Smith: When dealing with part I of the Bill, the Home Secretary skipped over chapter II. Clause 23 is causing considerable concern to Shelter and others who think that depriving someone of their home after they have been imprisoned will not help with rehabilitation. They are concerned that the clause may be drawn too widely and will capture more crimes than was originally intended. Does the Home Secretary accept that it might have been more appropriate to introduce a separate Scottish Bill so that the specific Scottish concerns could have been dealt with separately?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office is on the Front Bench with me. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that all aspects of the Bill that relate to Scotland have the full support of Ministers at the Scottish Office. The power that he has referred to is important. I want offenders to be rehabilitated, but first I want them to be stopped from committing crimes and disorder against ordinary members of the public. After the episodes in Coventry and in my constituency, the police and the local authorities could restore order and quality of life for the victims only by evicting the perpetrators and keeping them out of the area.

Mr. David Taylor: My right hon. Friend has not referred specifically to clause 17. As a magistrate and a founder member of the North-West Leicestershire safer communities forum, I welcome the measures on anti-social behaviour and partnership with local authorities. Welcome as the innovations are, does my right hon. Friend accept that they need to be buttressed to help deal with town centre violence and disorder by further investment in closed circuit television camera systems and making it easier to introduce byelaws to prevent drinking on the streets? Those are two valuable measures for north-west Leicestershire.

Mr. Straw: I accept that although the Bill is comprehensive, it is not exclusive in providing answers to the problems of crime and disorder in our communities. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need for other crime prevention measures, which can include closed circuit television and bans on drinking alcohol on the street. Model clauses are available to local authorities.
The Bill sets a framework for agencies to deliver local youth justice services efficiently and effectively through youth offending teams. The new national Youth Justice Board will oversee the performance of the system. I should like the board to be established formally from 1 October if the Bill receives Royal Assent early enough. Subject to the Bill's being given a Second Reading today, the appointments process will begin shortly, in accordance with normal practice.
Drugs are at the root of much crime and disorder. The new drug treatment and testing order will help to break the vicious circle of drugs and crime. The order will permit regular mandatory drug testing of offenders as part of their community punishment.
All hon. Members realise that few crimes cause greater anxiety, anger and revulsion than sexual offences against children. We have acted swiftly to protect the public and to plug the legal gaps that were left in legislation by the previous Administration.
The new sex offender order will help to protect communities from known sex offenders who still pose a risk. A convicted paedophile could, for example, be barred from loitering outside a local primary school. If he broke the order, he would be liable to up to five years' imprisonment. An order, once in force, will be available to deal with any offenders, including those sentenced before implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
The Bill also provides for extended supervision of sex and violent offenders after their release from prison—for up to 10 years for sex offenders, and for five years for violent offenders.

Mrs. Theresa May: I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way. My constituency lies in one of the electronic tagging pilot areas. Today, I had a telephone conversation with a young mother who was very concerned at media reports that the released paedophile Sidney Cooke might live in one of the electronic tagging pilot areas, which would include her area. Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that, wherever Sidney Cooke goes to live, local police will take every action in their power to ensure public safety and particularly the safety of local children?

Mr. Straw: I am happy to give the hon. Lady that reassurance. I should also like to pay tribute to the police and the probation service, who have expended enormous effort and shown great professionalism and skill in dealing with sex offenders.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The Bill currently time limits sentence extensions for some offences, at least in Scotland, to five years and 10 years. Has the Secretary of State considered allowing no time limit for extensions, at least in cases that are tried in the High Court in Scotland? I understand why cases tried in sheriff courts might be time limited, even if they are tried on indictment. However, perhaps we could allow extensions without limit of time in cases that are thought serious enough to be tried in the High Court.

Mr. Straw: As an English Member, I always hesitate to become involved in the intricacies of the Scottish legal system. However, I do not think that it is possible to extend supervision orders to life, as that would effectively make the orders life sentences—which are already available. Early in our Administration, I implemented section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which provides automatic life sentences for second-time repeat sexual offenders who commit serious sexual offences. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office to deal with the point raised by the hon. Lady and to contact her about it.
I understand the widespread concern that the most serious and disturbed sex offenders should not be released from prison until it is safe to do so. However, as the

House will appreciate, it is a highly complex matter. Clearly, there is a need for action to close the current gap in the law, which does not adequately provide for offenders who are dangerous, but are not classified as being mentally disordered. I promise the House that we are working hard on precisely how we should deal with plugging that gap. I shall make an announcement to the House on the matter as soon as I am able to do so.
Our manifesto promised greater clarity and consistency in sentencing. Under the Bill, the Court of Appeal will produce sentencing guidelines better to inform its sentencing decisions. Its actions on the matter will be supported by a sentencing advisory panel.
In the other place, an amendment moved by Lord Ackner was passed on Third Reading, to establish a standing advisory council on criminal justice and the penal system. I have considered the proposal very carefully, and, in the light of that consideration, we shall seek to delete that provision in Committee. As I have already made clear, the Bill provides for a new sentencing advisory panel and a national Youth Justice Board. We have, therefore. concluded that another unfocused body would cause unnecessary duplication and significant delay in dealing with many of the problems of the criminal justice system. Delays in the criminal justice system waste money and cause huge frustration.
The previous Government commissioned a review of delays, known as the Narey review. The Bill implements many of Narey's recommendations, including greater powers for magistrates and justices' clerks to manage cases, and powers for Crown Prosecution Service administrators who are not lawyers to present straightforward guilty pleas in court.

Mr. Beith: The Home Secretary has corrunitted the most extraordinary twist of argument. He suggested that the existence of an advisory body would add to delays in the judicial process. How can the receipt by him of advice from such a body, the idea of which commanded widespread support in the other place, in any way contribute to delays between stages of the judicial process?

Mr. Straw: There are two separate points. Such a body would plainly not contribute to delays in the process of any one case, but there is no question but that it would cause considerable delay in the making of policy. That is one of the reasons why the old advisory council was abolished and more focused bodies were put in its place. The matter is for debate in Committee and, no doubt, on Report. The right hon. Gentleman will see in clause 1 the expectation that, before hon. Members and Ministers consider any issue requiring a policy change in criminal law, it will be referred to the standing advisory council. The old advisory council on the penal system took a very long time to consider issues and, typically, came to split recommendations, expressing two or three opinions in its reports.
It is one thing for Parliament to pass the Bill; it is another to ensure that it is implemented effectively. That is why we are working closely with practitioners to develop guidance on implementation, and why many of the provisions will be piloted.
In our manifesto, we promised a new approach to law and order: tough on crime and tough on its causes. The approach is overwhelmingly backed by the British


people. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver no fewer than 12 of the promises that we made, including the pledge to speed up justice for persistent young offenders.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will not.
Throughout the rest of the Parliament, we will build on the foundations laid by the Bill. In particular, we will bring forward further measures to modernise the criminal justice system, help the victims of crime, protect communities from sex offenders and improve the performance and operation of youth courts. The Bill will make a real difference to the quality of life of people in this country. It will equip the criminal justice system better to serve and protect the public. It will help to restore the self-confidence of communities to demand and secure decent standards of public behaviour from everyone. I commend the Bill to the House.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary has set out aspirations with which all of us could agree. As Members of Parliament, we can all identify with his comments on bad behaviour and criminal behaviour. I suspect that all of us who have been Members of Parliament for any length of time can identify with the feeling that, as he said, in Blackburn, Peterborough and the rest of the country, crime has been getting worse and more vicious, and its incidence has been increasing. All of us could agree with his aspiration to address that.
I say in passing that the Home Secretary referred to several cases of good collaborative work. We have discussed that point, and I shall refer to it later. We on the Conservative Benches would still have hankered after a system of encouraging development of such voluntary activity rather than including some of the statutory measures in the Bill—not least for fear that many will become bureaucratically bogged down.
The purpose of the Bill, as the Home Secretary said, is in effect to improve the quality of life of our constituents. The desire is to deter crime and to punish crime. I welcome that recognition of the effectiveness of deterrence, a thread that ran through the Home Secretary's speech. He told us that the police welcomed the Bill, but he was not willing to give a commitment that it would cut crime. That reawakened echoes in my mind.
The Home Secretary will recall the very successful 1993 Conservative party conference, when his predecessor—

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary is going to have to do better in that case.
At that conference, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), set out a 27-point programme to enable the police and the courts to deal with criminals more effectively. The right hon.
Gentleman's predecessor as shadow Labour Home Secretary was the current Prime Minister, who dismissed the programme as
a series of gimmicks to get a headline",
even though the Police Federation called the proposals "first class". All 27 points were implemented, and yesterday we witnessed the result of that programme for the fifth year running.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has broadly welcomed the Bill. He mentioned gimmicks, so am I to take it that he wholly departs from the briefing put out by the Conservative research department, a copy of which I have here, which describes the Bill as
policy gimmicks dreamt up by Labour in opposition"?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I shall come to the substance of the Bill shortly. We support some of the Bill; some of it we think is good, but too weak, and some of it is typically new Labour and nannying—[Interruption.] I know that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), thinks that that is a compliment, but I am not sure whether that notion is resonating quite so strongly in the streets of our nation as it did 10 months ago. In any event, we shall see.
During the debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1994, the then shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, dismissed it as a Bill
based on old Tory deceit".—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 35.]
He said that it was "fundamentally flawed" and that it was not an effective measure to tackle crime. To coin a phrase, he was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Our measures produced five years of reductions in crime. That is something which can be appreciated in all quarters of the House. What I am seeking to underscore for the Home Secretary is the fact that we are not at all averse to the Bill, because we believe it will help to build on the foundations of that decrease in crime over the past five years.
Incidentally, yesterday we witnessed the most amazing volte-face by the Home Secretary and his colleagues. For years, they have been telling the House and the country that poverty and unemployment were the causes of crime. They have slandered millions of our fellow citizens by repeating that mantra time and again. Yesterday, they turned on their heel and told us that it was not poverty and unemployment that they believed caused crime but prosperity. That may have been the view that the right hon. Gentleman put out yesterday along with the figures, but, to judge from the looks on the faces of most Labour Members sitting behind him, they do not agree.

Mr. David Taylor: It is not clear what the shadow Home Secretary is saying, so perhaps he should spell it out. Is he saying that there is absolutely no link between poverty and bad housing, and all that sometimes goes with that, and a higher incidence of criminal offences?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: What I am saying is that for years the Labour party slandered millions of people by saying that poverty and unemployment caused crime, but that yesterday it changed its mind. I welcome a recognition that the old positions that the Government


erroneously held are up for review, but it would be slightly surprising if I did not draw such an amazing U-turn to the attention of the House as a prelude to consideration of the Bill.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Not at the moment.
I shall set out what we believe in. We believe in chief constables developing local schemes to crack down on petty crime. We believe in chief constables developing local schemes to improve public order. We believe in voluntary photographic identification, which would enable retailers to identify youngsters trying to buy alcohol or cigarettes or to rent classified videos when they were under age. We believe in parental control orders, so that courts could impose them on the parents who they believe could control their children, but are refusing to do so. We believe in giving the courts power to impose speedy sanctions on youngsters, including, wherever possible, an element of reparation to the victim.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Shortly; let me finish this part of my speech.
We believe that the probation service, not social services, should be responsible for enforcing community punishments for the under-16s. We believe in electronically monitored curfew orders nationwide for those aged 16 and over. We believe in honesty in sentencing and so favour abolishing automatic early release. We believe that judges should have the power to stop a defendant personally questioning the victim in rape cases and other cases when the victim is especially vulnerable. Finally, we believe that justice delayed is justice denied.
As a result, we support proposals that would enable all defendants to appear in court the next working day after being charged, that would enable at least 50 per cent. to be convicted the next day—compared with the present figure of under 5 per cent.—and that would cut the time taken to bring juveniles to court from 10 or more weeks to a matter of days. They are 10 things in which we believe. The Home Secretary will be able to read all 10 in our manifesto.
I say that because the Home Secretary said, perfectly fairly, that the proposals that underpin the Bill were drawn up by him and his colleagues while in opposition. I do not question that. Indeed, I pay tribute to him for the effective use of time in opposition; listening, consulting, reaching those conclusions and then reflecting them in the manifesto. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in turn to accept that so much of what he has said was reflected in our manifesto. Our manifesto reflects a similar activity and focus as a result of our listening to our constituents.
It is because both Front-Bench teams came independently to the same conclusions—I am sure that the Home Secretary would want me to stress that it was independently—about the issues that needed to be dealt with and broadly how to deal with them that I make it clear that we shall not be opposing the Bill at 10 pm.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I want to take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about parental control orders, which

the Conservatives advocate. He said that they may be appropriate for parents who do have control over their children, but what would he do about parents who do not currently have good control over or good relationships with their children? Does he acknowledge that the provisions in the Bill that allow for the support of such parents will do far more to deal with the problem of young offenders?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Lady might have misheard me, but she can read what I said in Hansard. I said that we were in favour of parental control orders and the court applying them to parents who the court believed could control their children effectively, but who were not currently willing to do so. As for the details of parenting orders, about which I shall have more to say shortly, those are the sort of issues that we shall explore in Committee, if both the hon. Lady and I have the pleasure of serving on the Committee.
I have made it clear that we shall not oppose Second Reading, and I have set out the reasons why. We shall, of course, want to examine each clause closely, and we intend to do so both in Committee and on Report, because we believe that, although parts of the Bill are right and proper and will be a useful addition to the body of criminal law, other parts should be strengthened, and we should probe Ministers as to whether yet others are as effective as Ministers believe them to be.

Mr. Collins: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech, with which I entirely agree. However, while he is on the subject of individual clauses, will he spend a few moments—the Home Secretary did not—on clause 53, which would reintroduce the right of someone who has been convicted of murder, rape or manslaughter to be given bail, even when appearing on the charge of a repeat offence of murder, rape or manslaughter? Does he agree that the existing law, introduced by the previous Government, was right in providing that someone like that should not, in any circumstances, be entitled to bail?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I was relieved to hear his introductory comment. He makes a powerful point, and that is one of the issues on which, when we get to detailed consideration of the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House will have a debate that is more focused than those on some of the other clauses.
Our greatest criticism of the Bill is that it has been hugely oversold by the Government. Press release has succeeded press release and hype has succeeded hype; if the first hype of a particular measure was not thought to be good enough or effective enough, it was rehyped and rehyped again. It is almost as if the Government want the public to believe that the Bill is the ultimate solution in the reduction of crime. Time and again, with hype after hype, the Home Secretary launched the same initiatives multiply, although occasionally he let the Minister of State get his nose in. We were told, over and over again, the same news story. The fact that it was so often the same news story also tells us something about the professionalism—or perhaps the bias—of newspapers and electronic newsdesks, but the truth is that the Bill has been hugely oversold.
That might be thought to be a political point and, in a sense, it is; but the issue is more important than that, because such hyping raises expectations among people whose lives are under pressure because of the behaviour of their neighbours and the levels of crime in their neighbourhood. It is not, or it should not be, the purpose of the House to raise expectations to a level that is not sustainable by the legislation. The Home Secretary should realise that the British people are more sophisticated than that, and they are not simply going to buy soundbites—they want detailed proposals. In Committee, we shall try to examine exactly what can and what cannot be achieved by the legislation, so that the public have more sensible expectations as to its consequences.

Mr. Beith: I agree that this Government are never knowingly oversold, but did they not learn that from their predecessors? I recall the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), making similarly extravagant claims about his plans to provide secure accommodation for young offenders, none of which was available by the time the Conservatives left office.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Before turning in that last point, the right hon. Gentleman should have remembered that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has made a particular study of that subject. When we left office, we had provided 160 secure places, whereas, if my memory serves me correctly, the current Government have managed only six places in their first year in office.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that his Government promised as long ago as 1991 to provide an additional 171 secure places and that, although they reduced that number to 170 so as to make the target more manageable, they did not achieve it.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The Minister has made his point, but he knows that it does not stand examination, and that the Labour Government's record on the matter is in danger of becoming shameful. We shall have a chance to look in detail at some of those points in Committee.
I shall deal briefly with several of the issues raised in the Bill, because, as the Home Secretary pointed out, it draws together a variety of issues in a single piece of legislation. I start by saying that there is one aspect to the Bill which will disappoint many people, in that it is remarkably light in terms of addressing the fear of crime. The Home Secretary knows that, slightly perversely, the percentage of people in this country who are afraid of crime is among the highest in the developed world, even though our crime rates are far lower than in many other comparable countries.
The fear of crime is an important issue, which the Home Secretary addresses through orders aimed at anti-social behaviour—although I noticed that, in his opening remarks, he used the term "intimidation". Although that word does not occur in the Bill, he was right to use it and I compliment him on doing so, because it starts to get a grip on the issue of the fear of crime.

It may be that, together, we can find a way to beef up the Bill so that it offers greater reassurance, especially to old people and people with young families, who suffer disproportionately from that fear.
We have some concerns about the consulting arrangements in respect of various orders. The consultation mechanisms are restricted to the local government area and the police area. Before Committee, will the Home Secretary consider carefully cases where people live on the border between counties and police forces? As we understand it, the Bill as drafted requires consultation in only one area, so there is a real need to amend the Bill to cover that eventuality.

Mr. Straw: indicated assent.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am encouraged by the positive response from the Home Secretary.
We believe that the sex offender orders in the Bill are important, but that they ought to be strengthened, and we shall want to amend the Bill accordingly in Committee. I was recently at Styal prison, where I was again impressed by the number of women prisoners who had experienced sex abuse of one sort or another, either as children or later in life as wives or partners. I make no party political point, as it is common currency across the Chamber that we all have a strong dislike of sex offences. I hope that we can co-operatively find out whether the Bill could be strengthened as we examine it.
I am surprised by two things about the Bill. First, it is apparently not to be used by the Home Secretary as a vehicle to tackle a manifesto commitment made by both the Labour and the Conservative parties to prohibit defendants from personally interviewing rape victims in court. When I raised that with the Home Secretary during recent Home Office questions, he bit my head off, somewhat uncharacteristically. I raised the matter because it is of considerable importance both to him and to us, but more importantly to the country. I know that he has a committee considering such issues, which is dealing with vulnerable witnesses beyond just rape cases, and I would not want to disrupt the Government's planned legislative programme, but I am trying to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the issue is a cause of grave concern and a serious abuse. On reflection, I hope that he will be willing to disaggregate it from the work of the committee on the other issues and reconsider producing amendments in Committee or on Report to deal with it.

Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman may have spotted, I am losing my voice. I do not recall biting his head off—I thought that I was ever so gentle when I dealt with him, and he must look forward to an occasion on which I do bite his head off, I hope in full voice.
I was trying to point out in oral questions a week ago that that is a complex area of the law. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise, because his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) pointed it out, that we have to take into account the rights of defendants, however unworthy they may be, as people have a right to a fair trial and to cross-examination being undertaken on their behalf. Balancing the interests of a victim, normally the principal witness for the prosecution, and the interests of the defendant, and securing a fair trial, is difficult and complex.
If I could have produced proposals in the Bill, I would have done so. I cannot, and it is better to ensure that what is brought before the House is in proper order than to produce legislation in haste and have to repent at leisure. It would not be at leisure, because bad legislation in that area would lead to the acquittal of guilty people.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I understand the Home Secretary's point and would not want him to deny the rights of the defendant. Indeed, we are not asking him to do so, and if he were tempted, we would not support him, so we recognise all those arguments. We also recognise that some time will elapse between now and Report, and while I hear what he says, I hope that he will not entirely close his mind.
Secondly, regarding what the Home Secretary said at the beginning of the debate about considering urgently producing legislation to deal with dangerous paedophiles, that is a matter of urgency, which raises significant issues. Again, were he to think that he could tackle it by an amendment on Report, we would be as co-operative as possible.
I turn the Home Secretary's attention to clause 6 and the crime and disorder strategies, as they may be a recipe for confusion. I know that it was not the Government's intention in drafting the Bill, or I believe that it was not, but our reading of it suggests that a district council should have a strategy, a county council should have a strategy and the police should have a strategy. While the clause goes on to talk about co-operation between persons and bodies in developing those strategies, it is not nearly clear enough in regard to each area needing a single strategy. We shall want to examine that in some detail in Committee.

Mr. Michael: To ensure that there is no confusion and that the interpretation of clause 6 is clear, it is intended that there should be one strategy, to be arrived at jointly by the local authority—or authorities, if it is a two-tier area—and the police acting together and involving the other agencies mentioned. That is the way in which the clause has been interpreted unanimously and enthusiastically by both the police and local authorities.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Given the nature of the Bill, that is what we think ought to happen. I am merely alerting the Minister to the fact that we are not sure that the drafting of the Bill gives effect to what is clearly a more sensible way to proceed.
While on clause 6, we also want to examine the dangers of extensive bureaucracies taking over. We shall want to hear the Government's plans on ensuring that the strategy does not become bureaucracy bound and enabling the primary point of the exercise to be achieved, rather than being sucked into the normal round of local government activity which, whoever is in power, tends to become bureaucratic. Also, when considering that issue, we shall want to be reassured about police primacy on law and order strategies and that the police will retain control both of budgets and of managing police manpower. Neither is made clear in the context of that co-operative strategy, and they need to be clear for the police.

Fiona Mactaggart: On that point—and returning to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier argument about there being

no link between poverty and crime—is he aware that in Slough our local police commander has commended a scheme to give a night shelter to the drunks who live in the town centre as one of the best ways to tackle crime and disorder in our town? It is a clear example of the way in which a lack of resources—in this case, a lack of housing—has contributed to crime and disorder. The partnership that exists in the town, which is very practical, has already been able to tackle the problem. In fact, it was the growing gap between rich and poor under the Conservative Government that most provoked crime.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Lady's real point is that a voluntary partnership was in place before the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, introduced by the Conservative Administration, gave the local police committee power to draw up a policing plan. In Gloucestershire, that is beginning to work quite well and it would be a pity if this new power started to cut across that strategy. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the matter is examined carefully in Committee?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Yes, I will. My hon. Friend is right. Such plans were becoming increasingly effective. They had the advantage of having the police in the lead. There will obviously be a relationship between them and the new strategies, but we must not lose the best of what already exists.

Mr. Hawkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed from Labour Members' interventions that there is something of a contrast between the Home Secretary's gracious acknowledgement in his opening remarks that the Labour party got these issues entirely wrong for years in the 1970s and the 1980s and the fact that some Labour Members are suggesting in interventions that, while the Home Secretary has acknowledged that the Conservative Administration were right all along and they were wrong, they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: My hon. Friend tempts me hugely, but he has probably made his point. Having acknowledged that there is merit in the Bill, I shall resist the temptation to respond to my hon. Friend and instead will focus on some of the other issues on which I wish briefly to comment.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: No, I have been generous, and if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make some progress.
With regard to the parenting orders, we shall want to examine how the Home Secretary thinks that penalising some parents will make more effective their control of their children. We are in favour of parenting orders, but in Committee we shall try to find out how the Government envisage the measure working and, in particular, how it will work effectively for parents who do not respond positively to such orders.
We are also concerned that the parenting orders may come too late in the process. There is just a suspicion from the Bill that parenting orders will not come into


effect until, to mix my metaphors, the horse has already bolted. I hope that we shall be able to consider whether there is any possibility of bringing in some form of slightly less draconian parenting orders earlier in the process, to assist young people.
All hon. Members deplore racist acts and crime that is racially motivated. As on the Labour Benches, so on the Conservative Benches. We take the subject seriously and we shall want to debate the issues constructively. Skin colour should not be an issue. We shall want to explore whether the Bill adds significant new powers to existing legislation or not, as was the conclusion of a fairly extensive debate in the other place among legal experts. I hope that the Home Secretary agrees that we do not need legislation that is a sop to those who are politically correct. We need effective legislation. If that adds to the ability of the courts over and above existing law to deal with racially motivated crime, we are in favour of it. But we shall want to explore some of those issues.
We shall not support or vote for anything that hints at endorsing racial behaviour. On the other hand, I am sure that the Home Secretary will agree that Parliament should not be frightened off from examining that part of the Bill closely, just because it deals with a politically and culturally sensitive subject.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The Conservative Government had 18 years to deal with the matter. I can remember attending many debates, and pressing the then Home Secretary about the need for tough action on racial harassment and attacks. What is the right hon. Gentleman's explanation and excuse for not introducing such laws?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am almost sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do—perhaps he does not, and that is part of his trouble—of the steps taken by the previous Government during 18 years in office in a variety of areas, to address the problem. The hon. Gentleman probably does the House a disservice by trying to turn the Bill into a party political football.
We shall want to examine with care the concept of youth offending teams, in particular who is in the lead in those teams. That is not covered in the legislation, but it is crucial, because the leadership of those teams will have a major effect on how they discharge their responsibilities.
I hear what the Home Secretary says about the Youth Justice Board. We shall want to explore whether a national board is the right way forward or, given the nature of the Bill, which the Home Secretary says is community based, whether a national board is too blunt a weapon to deal with some of the issues that will emerge.
The Bill is full of orders—sex offender orders, drug treatment and testing orders, parental orders, training orders and supervision orders. The list goes on and on. We shall examine each in turn constructively, to ensure that those orders, when made, are effective.
We support clause 31, which abolishes the presumption that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing a criminal offence. I assume—perhaps the Minister will

confirm this when he replies—that the abolition of the death penalty for treason and piracy will, under the usual conventions of the House, be decided on a free vote.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not want to challenge my right hon. Friend's view, or the Conservative party's view, on the presumption of criminal intent for people over the age of 10, but there are child organisations, including Barnardos and the Children's Society, which have views on the matter. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that their views are at least aired and shared in Committee, rather than just taken for granted because there is bipartisan agreement that there is no argument against?

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and tell him that I have already received a number of those views from the organisations to which he refers. It will be part of the purpose of the Bill's examination to ensure that all the views expressed to us are given the sort of consideration that he would wish.
With regard to sending 10 and 11-year-olds to prison, we shall listen to the Government with great interest, given all that they said on the subject in opposition. We shall also want to examine in detail the plans to allow prisoners out of prison before the courts say that they should be released.
This Bill will take up a great deal of parliamentary time. Up to 20 organisations have already been in touch with us, offering views and amendments for our consideration. As the Home Secretary said, it is a long and detailed Bill, which deals with multiple issues. I hope that he will accept that we have now started to establish a track record of not filibustering and of considering legislation constructively and sensibly. However, we will not be rushed in our consideration of some of these issues, which will affect the lives of our constituents for years to come.
The Bill is designed to achieve an improvement in the quality of life of the people of this country. It focuses on disorder as opposed to law and order. We think that there are aspects of it that are worthy of support, and we shall offer that support. We shall also look at its effectiveness after implementation, in the hope that it will continue the run of five years of reduced crime for which we take responsibility with pride.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I have a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). When I sat in his place, starting out as shadow Home Secretary, I had to wait another 15 years before my party came to office. Although that may have been partly due to my imperfections, the right hon. Gentleman may have to take into account the fact that there may be some serious trends in these matters and that he may find himself treading water for some time before returning—if he ever does—to the Government Benches.
I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this is a Bill for which my constituents have been waiting. My constituency is one of the most crime-ridden areas in one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country. The overall crime figures for Manchester show huge categories of car crime, burglary and robbery.
My constituency is covered by C Division of the Greater Manchester police. In the last full year, the figures for C Division were the worst in Greater Manchester for burglary from dwellings; theft; theft of bicycles; theft from motor vehicles; and criminal damage. The total number of recorded offences in the police division that covers my constituency was far higher than in any other police division in Greater Manchester. The division covering the Long sight police area—C1 Division—was almost the worst in the city, with particularly bad figures for criminal damage.
The statistics, which have been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, cover enormous experience of personal misery. Many of them relate not only to recorded offences but to offences which are not recorded. A personal friend of mine who lives in the Abbey Hey area of my constituency had a very bad experience about a month ago. Louts broke into his car outside his house and set it alight. The car exploded and that set the house on fire, which blew up the gas mains so his family were blown out of their house. That was the terrible experience of one family as a result of one piece of mindless vandalism.
There is the case of a man living in a council house in the Fallowfield area of my constituency. The neighbouring house was in the charge of a 15-year-old whose mother had left and whose father had left long before that. That 15-year-old committed acts of vandalism. One day, he began uprooting the hedge between the two houses. My constituent remonstrated with him. The youth went into his home, came out with a baseball bat and hit my constituent across the face, breaking his cheekbone and nearly taking out his eye. Until I intervened, that was going to result in no more than a police caution.
An elderly lady—a pensioner—on the Anson estate in my constituency woke up in her bed to find a criminal ransacking her bedroom and peering under her pillow to find what he could steal from her. That is an all-too-common experience for many people who just want to live their lives in peace and without being harassed or interfered with.
At every advice bureau I hold in my constituency, people complain about all sorts of criminal offences being committed against them. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is accurate when he says that many of those cases do not seem too bad unless one experiences them. If one lives in a block of council flats off Abbey Hey lane with a group of youths congregating menacingly around the property, one is not living a tranquil life. If one lives near empty local authority houses or local authority houses apparently tenanted but unoccupied which are used for vandalism, blow torch attacks and all the other things that we all know about, one's life will be discontented. If one's visit to the neighbouring fish and chip shop involves fighting through a cordon of rowdy youths who look as if they are about to inflict harm—even if they do not do so—one is not living a tranquil life. Again and again, my constituents come to me with complaints of burglary, harassment, vandalism and loitering with menace.
Let me make it clear that I have no criticism of the police. They are doing their best in appallingly difficult circumstances. If, because of a shortage of men and women, there is only one local police officer whose beat

takes him once round an area every day, it is well known to potential criminals that when he has gone by, that area is clear for the rest of the day.
Of course, not all police responses are perfect. There are cases where police reaction could be more sympathetic or caring, but that is rare.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Not just at the moment, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
In the main, Greater Manchester police and the police operating in my constituency do their best in very difficult circumstances. The fact that those circumstances are extraordinarily difficult can be demonstrated by comparing the Greater Manchester police plan for the coming year with the facts. One of the things promised—I am grateful for it—is that 90 per cent. of 999 calls will be answered within 15 seconds and a further 6 per cent. within 30 seconds. The plan also says that the police hope to be able to respond to 92 per cent. of non-999 calls within 30 seconds. With the best will in the world, that is a hugely ambitious target.
The police station at Garrat way is staffed only part time, and has an answering machine. However, if people ring through to an answering machine, they will not feel that their concerns are being adequately attended to.
Let us consider the Greater Manchester police targets, as set out in the policing plan for 1998–99, which has been distributed to people in my area. Their target is to detect 13 per cent. of burglary in dwellings by primary means and 13.1 per cent. of burglary in dwellings overall—that is the target they hope to fulfil, which would mean that 87 per cent. of the burglaries would not be detected. Nevertheless, the target is ambitious; it would mean doubling last year's rate of 6.4 per cent.
The target for thefts from motor vehicles by primary means is 6 per cent.—that is what the police hope to achieve if they do really well—which acknowledges that 94 per cent. will not be detected. That is hugely ambitious, as it would mean almost trebling last year's detection rate of 2.5 per cent.
I repeat that I do not criticise the police. I am not accusing them, but clarifying the fact that the overwhelming majority of the crime that affects our constituents will not be solved. Moreover, I am talking only about recorded crime. Large numbers of such crimes are not reported, except for insurance purposes, and even then, one must take into account the fact that, in a constituency such as mine, many people cannot afford insurance—even if they can, they have to pay more than people who live in more tranquil areas do.

Mr. Damian Green: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
I am one of the many hon. Members who live in their own constituencies. I have to pay a higher premium to insure my house and its contents in inner-city Manchester than I do in St. John's Wood, where my flat is in London. I have the same insurance agent for both—the Co-op.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can give hon. Members the name of my agent, if they need one—Mr. Kilgour is a very nice man and has been dealing with me for years.
The clear-up rate for theft is 5.4 per cent. As I said, that does not include unreported crimes. Within that figure, the proportion of juvenile crime is fearsome. C Division, which covers my constituency, has figures that show among the worst incidence of crime committed by children aged 14 and under. I am sure that all hon. Members who have been in the House for some time will know that juvenile crime has risen relentlessly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that, in the past decade, the amount of crime work has almost overtaken the amount of any other kind of case work with which Members of Parliament have to deal. Within that, juvenile crime—crime committed by young people, including small children—has grown frighteningly.
The victims of crime include individuals in the street, in their homes, in their workplaces and in their cars. In my constituency, which I cannot believe is unique in this, schools are being broken into—computers, in particular, are being stolen. All that attacks the very basis of local cohesion in any community.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wants to intervene, but perhaps I have satisfied his every requirement.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the greatest deterrent against any form of crime is detection? If the police lack resources in Greater Manchester, Merseyside or anywhere else, the detection rate falls. We are paying the price for 10 years of under-investment.

Mr. Kaufman: I agree that detection is part of the way in which to deal with crime, but the other part, which is very much the subject of the Bill, is prevention. I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about resources. Nevertheless, things can be done even within existing resources. A scheme in my constituency deals with the serious problem whereby people, especially pensioners, become victims of multiple crimes—when they have been burgled once, they are burgled again and again. The police in my area have set up schemes to deal with that, and are making some headway.
As I said, this situation cannot be allowed to continue. Everything that is spent on detecting crime—essential as that is—is a waste of resources that otherwise could be spent more constructively. Crime is bad for the community. Life in areas of my constituency—even though it is in the inner city, it consists, like many constituencies, of interconnected villages—is seriously affected by the incidence and nature of crime.
Crime is bad for the offenders. Reprehensible and wicked as the acts of offenders are, their lives are being wasted. Young people—boys in particular; crime tends to involve boys rather than girls—who set out on a life of crime and drug taking fail to realise their potential of a fulfilling and constructive life, which is also bad for their families.
I strongly welcome the Bill. I welcome its emphasis and its practical proposals for dealing not only with existing offences but with anti-social behaviour and harassment that causes distress and alarm. I also welcome the parenting orders—it is essential that parents be made responsible. We talk about requirements on society and about what schoolteachers and social workers should do, but, in the end, parents have the responsibility. At meetings in my constituency on law and order, I hear again and again people's belief that parents must be made to be and seen to be responsible.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend accept that existing powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, by which parents can be made to pay fines and be bound over to keep their children under control, do not work? It may be appropriate to issue such orders, but sometimes parents have no control over their children and need a continuing programme of support.

Mr. Kaufman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that she would accept that there are different kinds of relationships between parents and children. Some parents care a great deal; they do everything that they can to prevent their children from erring and help them when they do. Some parents seem incapable of doing that, even though they want to. Some parents, sadly, seem to have no concern whatever. I strongly support the provisions in the Bill that will assist in dealing with the last two categories.
I strongly support also—

Mr. Green: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes. I said earlier that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Green: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves too far away from the performance of the police, and given his privileged position as a distinguished elder statesman in whom all ambition is spent, will he acknowledge one of the most common delusions of our constituents, which is that one of the ways to increase police effectiveness is to put back the bobby on the beat undertaking traditional patrolling? There is evidence, which unfortunately the general public do not accept, that such patrolling is one of the least effective ways of tackling crime, catching criminals and improving the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. It behoves those in the House who have studied these matters deeply and have a deep knowledge of them, as the right hon. Gentleman has, to try to combat this widespread public delusion.

Mr. Kaufman: It is obvious—I do not think that anyone, including the hon. Gentleman, would deny this—that the sight of a uniformed police officer is extremely reassuring. However, it has to be accepted that we shall never be able to afford to employ sufficient police officers for them to be seen regularly in all neighbourhoods. It is not possible to do that. As I have said, there is a local, highly regarded bobby in one part of my constituency who can only complete his beat once a day.
We would very much like to see more bobbies on the beat, but it is impractical to suggest that there would be sufficient quantities of human beings in evidence to deter



crime. Few crimes are committed in the view of a police officer. Many crimes are committed by those who know that once they have seen the police officer on his or her beat that day they will not see the officer again that day.
I particularly welcome child safety orders for No. l0s—I mean under-10s, although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said publicly what child safety orders mean for his children: he has warned them that, if they do not behave, he will call in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That has already been accomplished, perhaps, with a Freudian slip on my part. I am pleased that there is provision for care, protection and support to prevent repetition of offences. That is extremely important.
I strongly support the curfew provisions because kids under 10 should not be hanging around in the streets after 9 o'clock at night. However, I ask my right hon. Friend to examine the possibility of providing powers for curfews before 9 pm, provided that the circumstances make that appropriate.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I welcome the change in the law of criminal responsibility. I welcome also the replacement of cautions, which do not do much good, by reprimands and warnings. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he replies, would explain what happens as a consequence of reprimands. The Bill is clear about what happens as a consequence of warnings, but I am not as clear as I should be about what clause 53 does about reprimands.
The Bill includes provisions for reparation orders. It is excellent that there should be emphasis on reparation for victims and on benefits for offenders. There is an emphasis on training during detention and, of course, on dealing with racial aggravation.
When the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)—I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for this—he was far from accurate. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not wish to make this a party political point, but it is a fact that, 12 years ago, when I was shadow Home Secretary, I introduced in Standing Committee G on 10 April 1986 a new clause that would have created the offence of racial harassment. The then Conservative Government defeated it. On 12 April 1994, I spoke from the Opposition Benches on the then Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I spoke in favour of the creation of an offence of racial harassment. That proposal was defeated by the then Conservative Government.
Leaving aside recriminations about what happened all those years ago, the fact is that action could have been taken a long time ago on racial harassment. Unfortunately, the proposal was rejected by the then Government.
Clause 45 relates to the use of television links at preliminary hearings. I welcome the provision, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider in Committee the inclusion of internet links. By the time the Bill has been enacted and implemented for a few years, visual internet connections may be the rule rather than the exception. It would be as well to provide for that in the Bill.
The Bill is ambitious. It needs commitment by all the forces of law and order and by all the support services. It also needs resources, both human and financial, and those will not be easy to obtain in a well-controlled

budgetary climate, which I support. Nevertheless, we shall need those resources. Great hope reposes in the Bill. It must not fail, and I believe that it will succeed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in his thoughtful mode. We have heard him speak movingly about the rundown constituency in the poor part of Greater Manchester that he has represented for so many years. It will be one of the great challenges for the Conservative party in the intervening four or five years that are left to us to refresh our ideas so that we can help to change the ambience of that sort of inner-city area, as we have begun to change it in other parts of the country. That is pretty fundamental to tackling the sort of problems that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly identified.
There is much common ground on the subject of crime and disorder. I am glad that the Bill—I think that Conservatives are entitled to say this—builds on many of the ideas that we were developing, or beginning to develop, during the previous Parliament, and even further back. I can recall, if it is not too tedious, that I introduced the first curfew order in the Criminal Justice Bill of 1981, which became the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It found a position in that measure as the night restriction order. It was initially greeted with hesitation, but others have rightly built upon it, and I am glad that it is built upon further in the Bill.
We are right to say, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) has said, that the Conservative Government can congratulate themselves on turning the tide in recorded crime. That owes a good deal to the courage of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Although my right hon. and learned Friend has taken a great deal of flak at many stages, he changed a consistently rising level of recorded crime to levels that have been falling pretty steadily and significantly for five years. That is particularly because he has sent out a powerful signal that crime is not to be allowed to pay. Keeping persistent burglars out of circulation for a significant period cuts the amount of burglary that they can commit. To that extent, I support the view, which is sometimes regarded as controversial, that prison works.
In other areas, I believe in short sentences, and in seeking to protect the public in ways that we put into effect in the previous Parliament.
I wish to put the Bill into the wider criminal justice context, because, after 18 years—others will know from much longer experience—we know that no criminal justice Bill suddenly solves a particular problem, and that is certainly true of a Christmas tree-type Bill such as this, with a great many useful measures. It will not solve overnight the problems that we have to deal with.
It is a common objective of the Labour and Conservative parties to seek to reduce delay in the criminal justice system. The Home Secretary rightly acknowledged that many of the ideas in the Bill stem from the Narey report, instituted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and published in February 1997.
I strongly support the abolition of doli incapax, but we must look carefully at how we do it, and at the detail. We should probably get rid of it altogether, and not seek to


include alternative presumptions or any undue complexity. It never featured until recently, and it has begun to be used as a defence trick, sometimes at the instance of the young offender, and sometimes at the instance of lawyers. It simply holds up cases—sometimes seriously—while a teacher or someone who knows the youth in question is brought to court to give evidence that they plainly understand. It is outdated, and should go.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Narey report. Will he comment, as a distinguished former Attorney-General, on the Bar Council, which is worried about a recommendation, flowing from the Narey report on clause 50 of the Bill, that non-legal staff will be able to institute proceedings and prosecute such matters as contested bail applications in court? Is that not a dangerous precedent? As Lord Mishcon said, should not a professional, independent mind be exercised on these important issues in the Crown Prosecution Service?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall deal with it in a moment.
I shall focus my attention on delay. I asked the Attorney-General where we were to find the Government's proposals for speeding up criminal justice and thereby fulfilling their election promise to halve the time it takes for persistent young offenders to be brought before the court. He told me that I should burn the midnight oil and read the Bill. I have.
As I mentioned briefly when the Home Secretary kindly took my intervention, the Government should be careful not to be deluded by their own hype. They propose a pretty restrictive technical definition of a persistent offender—someone who has appeared three times before the court. Then, having noted that it took 142 days for someone to appear before the court, they propose to take some administrative step to ensure that it takes only 71 days. That is unlikely to solve the problem. I say this in anticipation of future, rather more party political, occasions. If the Government trot that forward as success, without tackling the real problem, it will be an empty gesture.
The real problem is that a substantial proportion of crime is committed by quite a small percentage of offenders, who commit offences time and again—five, 10, 15, 50, 100 or more offences within, say, six months. These are not just spree offenders, as the Home Secretary put it, although they exist. He is right to have learnt that from the inner London Crown Prosecution Service and other CPS areas. These are persistent offenders, people who make their living from crime, and who burgle time and again.
The three agencies—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Court Service—should work closely together. It must be their joint and several duty to ensure that a multiple offender identified as having committed a significant number of crimes is brought before the court promptly, without delay. I entirely agree with the Home Secretary's intention to abolish the rule in the case of R. v. Khan. The judgment was given in earlier times, without a full understanding of the problem of multiple offenders. There needs to be a reasonable, representative

sample of the offences—three or four will be quite sufficient—and the offenders should then be brought before the court.
That is easier said than done, because it is not easy for one police area, Crown Prosecution Service area or Court Service area to know what is happening in another. The Government must bend their mind—as we sought to do, but we did not crack the problem, which is on-going—to find a way in which cases can be brought together. We must ensure that legislation allows them to be brought to any convenient court, so that they can be promptly tried. That will require an updating of the three agencies' computer facilities. I hope that it will be possible to build on the e-mail facilities which have been effectively piloted in parts of the CPS.
I now deal with the best use of resources. I shall make a few comments on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I am talking about the use of unqualified staff in court cases. The danger is that those on the administrative side always want to get things done quickly and cheaply, and they always ask for too much. They always want unqualified people to be able to do almost everything, on the basis that any idiot can present a case. On the other side, the professions and trade unions do not want anybody who is unqualified or not an established member of a body to be able to do anything that they cannot do at present, for fear that the floodgates will be opened and the service diminished.
The Bar has come forward with sensible objections to the gates being opened too wide. I shall not seek to prescribe on Second Reading exactly how we should do it—that is a matter for the Government and for careful consideration in Committee. In my view, if one can make small advances, one can get a significant benefit.
It must be recognised—this is the point that the Bar makes most effectively—that, when one is prosecuting, one is dealing with people's rights and liberties, and if nobody in court is properly qualified to evaluate the case, or if the case has been evaluated in the CPS by somebody who is not properly legally trained and experienced, injustice may follow.
The CPS was set up as a result of the Philips royal commission in the late 1970s, which was instituted by the previous Labour Government and picked up by the incoming Conservative Government in 1979, so that there was a proper, professional service to review prosecutions. That must not be unduly diluted.

Mr. Hawkins: Even though non-lawyers might think that only uncontested hearings are at stake, so it does not matter, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the duty of a prosecutor is quite different from that of a defending advocate? A prosecutor has a duty to draw to the court's attention, even in an uncontested hearing, anything that may be important. That is why a qualified person needs to look into the matter to determine whether the court should be informed of anything bearing on the liberty of the subject.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is a good point—I agree with my hon. Friend. The accused may be rather bemused. He may say that, although he took goods from a shop he did not mean to put them in his bag instead of the basket—but he did put them in his bag so he is guilty.


The prosecutor may recognise that the person is not automatically guilty, and that the issue should go to trial; it should not just be processed, resulting in an unjustified criminal record for the person in question.
I believe it right to give justices' clerks greater powers—they are becoming ever better trained these days—to marshal and prepare cases, thereby allowing swifter action; but it is important that the dominant power remain with the magistrate, whether stipendiary or on the lay bench. We need the sound, local, common-sense skills of magistrates in the criminal justice system; those skills are immensely valuable. Therefore, although the idea represents an advance, it must be treated with care, so as not to dilute the strengths in the system that I have mentioned.
I come next to sentencing powers and—that awful word—disposals. The Bill contains an enormous variety of new orders: they concern anti-social neighbours, sex offenders, drug offenders, curfews, parenting, and so on. We shall need to look at them all very carefully. None will provide a complete answer, but magistrates will find it valuable to have a full quiver of sentences and disposals. These new ones are therefore to be welcomed in principle.
I want to say a word about the advisory council which is so much sought after by the senior judiciary in the House of Lords. We should carefully contemplate what they are saying, to see whether it can be melded into the Government's proposals in a sensible way. I do not pretend to endorse everything that is being argued for, but we do need a sensible and swift input from those who actually have to exercise sentencing powers. I hope that the Government will consider the idea carefully.
I welcome the Bill in general, but we will need to look closely at the detail. I am rather cynical about the Home Secretary's blithe claim that it fulfils 12 manifesto pledges. I have a feeling that manifesto pledges are not quite as valuable items of currency as some members of the public have hitherto thought them to be. No doubt that will all come out in the wash as we consider the Bill more closely.
We must also be careful not to be too bureaucratic. This is an extremely complex Bill. As a former Attorney-General, I say this against myself: it is extremely difficult to improve drafting, but, as I read the Bill, it passed through my mind that a good many of its clauses could have been drafted more simply and in a shorter form. Perhaps some of us will take a cockshy at introducing simpler and shorter clauses, if only so that we can be told by the Government that we have got our amendments wrong.
I have huge respect for parliamentary draftsmen, but this Bill, like so many others, has been drafted by reference to other Bills, and by reference to others that refer to yet others. It is not easy to read or to understand. It may be capable of improvement, but broadly I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Home Secretary described the purpose of the Bill as being to reduce crime and disorder. I welcome it for that reason, but also for three other reasons.
The first has not been mentioned by anyone in the debate—it is clause 33, which sweeps away the last remaining provision for the death penalty in our civilian

law. Many of us had thought that the death penalty was abolished 30 years ago, but it remains on the statute book for the offences of treason and piracy on the high seas. It is about time we tidied up our legislation and made the abolition total.
I am especially pleased because, as Lord Williams of Mostyn pointed out in the other place, clause 33 gives effect to a commitment by the Prime Minister at the Council of Europe summit in October, when the Heads of Government of 40 European countries pledged themselves to work for the abolition of the death penalty in Europe.
It is right and proper to sweep away the dust that has been gathering in some corners of our statute books, and clause 33 does precisely that. It is more than 150 years since anyone was hanged for piracy, and more than 50 years since anyone was hanged for treason. Everyone knows that those offences would not carry the death penalty today, so it is right to tidy up the legislation and to remove any remaining excuse for other countries that still operate the death penalty in Europe to shelter behind the United Kingdom. It is an obsolete provision.
I am glad that our noble Friends Lord Judd and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, members of our delegation to the Council of Europe Assembly, took part in the debate on an amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who deserves to be congratulated on having taken the initiative in this matter in the other place. That is the first reason for welcoming the Bill.
My second reason is clause 40, which provides for time limits to be specified for serious cases to be heard in court. It was, I believe, the shadow Home Secretary who said that justice delayed was justice denied. Of course, there must be proper provision for the preparation of defences and prosecutions, but when most people argue that cases should be brought to trial as quickly as possible, they draw attention to the effect on the defendant and his family of waiting for the case to be heard.
My own interest in the point arises from my having seen the effect not on a defendant but on a victim's family. It can have a terrible effect on victims and their families if cases take a long time to come to court. We can all imagine how relatives feel when someone has been killed and it then takes more than a year for the case to be heard and the guilty person to be sentenced.
Recently in Birmingham, a 17-year-old student walking through the city centre was the subject of an unprovoked assault by a man who hit him twice on the head with a bottle, punched him three times, knocked him unconscious to the ground, and fractured his skull. The student died. The man who had killed him was arrested within a matter of days.
The killing took place in June 1996; the case came to court in October 1997. Throughout that period, the victim's family had to attend one hearing after another, each time going through the emotional stress of expecting the case to be decided—only to find that it was adjourned to a later date, time and again. They had to go through that process for more than a year, waiting for justice to be done.
This is plainly wrong. My investigations into the reasons for the delay show that it was partly the result of the actions of the defence. It took 11 months from committal to the case being heard in Crown court. Five of those 11 months were the responsibility of the defence, but the rest of the delay was caused by the prosecution, and, in effect, by the legal system.
I am still not clear about who is responsible. From discussions with Ministers, it appears that nobody is responsible, because responsibility is split between Departments. If ever there was a case for a Minister of Justice, this is it. One person should accept responsibility for the administration of justice, but instead it seems to depend on the convenience of judges and the performance of the Court Service. No one is to blame for delay, and no one accepts responsibility for it, which is unreasonable and unfair, especially on the victim's family.
The third reason for welcoming the Bill is the provision in clause 75 for sentencing guidelines to be made publicly available. They should not only be made available, but be subject to public debate. People are entitled to discuss what is an appropriate range of sentences for a particular crime. In the case that I have described, Royston Worrell, the man who killed the student Andrew Steventon, was found not guilty of murder, but was convicted of manslaughter.
When sentencing Royston Worrell, the judge reminded the court that he had committed an unprovoked assault: he had not been attacked or intimidated in any way, and had killed a young man who was backing away from him and who had offered virtually no defence. In the words of the judge, Royston Worrell wanted to show that he was cock of the walk. He showed no remorse for the death of Andrew Steventon, and there was no suggestion that he had a mental illness.
Royston Worrell was sentenced to four and a half years in prison, and the family of Andrew Steventon have been told by the probation service that the sentence means that Royston Worrell will automatically—it might be better to say, probably—be released after being in prison for two years and seven months.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is entitled to appeal against sentences, but he decided that the sentence was not unduly lenient. In my opinion and that of Andrew Steventon's family, it is unduly lenient—this man killed without provocation. However, when I went to see my right hon. and learned Friend, he convinced me that the sentence is not unduly lenient in comparison with similar cases of brutal manslaughter—undue lenience is not an absolute standard.
I am not in favour of mandatory sentences for manslaughter or for most other crimes. We can all imagine extenuating circumstances even in manslaughter cases. A person who has killed may have been subjected to provocation, frightening intimidation or even sexual abuse over a long period; in the end, something snaps, and that person commits manslaughter. However, an unprovoked assault with a bottle on an innocent passer-by followed by three punches to the head—the assailant travelled a distance of 20 metres when throwing them—deserves more than two years and seven months in prison, most of which would have been spent in custody on remand.
Someone who commits such an assault and who has a previous conviction for an attack with a dangerous weapon must go to prison for longer than that, not only for punishment, but because we and our families deserve to be protected from such a person as we walk the streets of the city of Birmingham. I welcome clause 75, and look forward to the publication of sentencing guidelines,

so that we can discuss them and ensure that judges give sentences that the public and hon. Members regard as appropriate.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures in the Bill, although we have reservations about it and shall seek to have our questions answered. I agree with a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Peterborough, who warned of the danger of false expectations. In his case, that should be a warning born of experience.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I have only just started my speech. I am sorry; I should have referred to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). His warning should be born of experience of annual criminal justice Bills, all of which disappointed the expectations that they created.
When the Home Secretary said that 10 Labour party pledges would be delivered by the Bill, he walked straight into that trap. Legislation does not deliver the outcomes that make a difference. Many of the pledges are valuable, and we want them to be implemented, but they will be implemented only when resources have been made available and the work has been done.
There is no better example of that than the pledge to halve the time that young offenders spend between arrest and sentencing, which I raised with the Home Secretary. Even though it was an early pledge, it will almost certainly not be delivered for several years. We should avoid the temptation of believing that it is legislation, rather than work and the commitment of resources, that gets things done.
I want to make a point of principle about the Bill's construction. We object to significant changes to Scottish law being tacked on to English Bills. Scotland is a nation with its own criminal justice system and judiciary, and the clauses that the Government believe to be urgent should have been dealt with in a separate Bill, which would have allowed Scottish Members to debate them properly. Clauses that are not urgent should have been dealt with by the Scottish Parliament, which will have responsibility for the criminal law in Scotland.
The problem with the way in which the House is dealing with the Bill was shown when my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) intervened on the Home Secretary, who could not answer his point. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Scottish Minister was on the Front Bench, but he is unable to speak in the debate and he is not here now. There will be no interchange on Second Reading between Scottish Members and the Ministers who are responsible for the criminal law in Scotland. That is not a reasonable way to proceed with major Scottish legislation.

Mr. Michael: Three or four Ministers, or three or four shadow Ministers, frequently have a contribution to make in a debate, but we cannot get a quart into a pint pot. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am working closely with the Minister for Home Affairs and


Devolution, Scottish Office on issues that are of interest to Scotland and to England and Wales. We shall propose that elements of the Bill be grouped for debate in Committee. My hon. Friend will respond to debates on the Scottish sections of the Bill, so that they can be dealt with coherently during detailed consideration in Committee.

Mr. Beith: That will be for the convenience of the Committee, but it will not be for the convenience of Scottish Members who are not members of it. Relatively few Scottish Members will be on the Committee. if the Bill was considered by a Scottish Standing Committee, which would consist largely, if not entirely, of Scottish Members, a wider range of Scottish opinion would be brought to bear on it. The Government are proceeding in the wrong way.
A constructive approach to problems of crime and disorder is long overdue. We had hoped that the Bill might be the start. Crime figures remain far too high, despite the welcome decline in recorded crime, which was reported in the past week. Too many young people are failing to develop constructive lives, and we welcome the Government's recognition in the Bill that more must be done to reduce youth crime. Almost 70 per cent. of people who offend over the age of 21 were first convicted when they were under 21. It is pressing that we tackle youth crime, and challenge and get to the roots of offending behaviour.
Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, the law and order agenda of the previous Government was a pretty miserable affair: it was a mixture of failed promises and measures that did not happen or did not work. They neglected the youth justice system to such an extent that the Audit Commission said in 1996 that more was being done 10 years previously than at that time to deal constructively with young offenders. They presented themselves as the champion of the police, and made pledges in the last Parliament to increase police numbers, but the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by more than 500 between 1992 and 1997. The number has fallen by another 300 since the start of April 1997.
We do not share the former Home Secretary's conviction that the principal solution to crime is to lock more people up for longer. He did little to deal with the falling conviction rates. It is not the case that more and more criminals were being caught, but more, including women and young people, were being locked up for longer. Some had committed offences for which imprisonment was inappropriate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also did little to increase the number of crime prevention initiatives. His mantra was "Prison works", although, for many people, prison does not work. Yet, while he was repeating that mantra, the very facilities that can help prison to work—education, seconded probation officers working in prisons and specialised programmes to deal with sex offenders—were being cut. I fear that they will continue to be cut, because the resources demanded for security by a rising prison population pre-empt such vital work.
Anyone who thinks that my criticisms are partisan, because they are criticisms of Conservatives by a Liberal Democrat, should read the report of a debate in another place, when three former Conservative Home Secretaries

attacked the notion that prison works. Lord Hurd of Westwell said that it could not be right to define the success of our criminal justice system by the number of our fellow citizens being put behind bars. Lord Baker was similarly critical of the superficial and spurious logic of the idea that "prison works". Those views were widely shared, and were espoused even by experienced members of the Conservative party.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I entirely follow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not agree that it needs to be qualified to some extent? Those who burgle repeatedly ought to receive a substantial prison sentence. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sentence of three years for a several-times burglar recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, was identical to the sentence recommended by the Court of Appeal in a case involving a similar period of offending? That was substantially longer than the 19-month sentence that currently applied.

Mr. Beith: First, I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the principle of mandatory sentencing. Once they are applied, sentences for related offences are ratcheted up, and the prison population is increased with no regard to the circumstances of the case involved.
I also disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what should be done with a "repeat burglar". What should be done is whatever is likely to bring home to him the gravity of his offences and have a punitive effect, while also making it probable that, when he is eventually released, he will not continue to be a repeat burglar. Those are the two issues which are most in people's minds. If prison is the most expensive and least effective way of securing such a result, we had better look for another way.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No. I have just given way, and I want to make some progress.
In certain circumstances, we should consider what other forms of sentence combine punitive elements with some prospect of ensuring that the prisoner leads a useful life when he leaves prison. It is no good if all we have done, as taxpayers, is fork out a great deal of money for someone to be fed, clothed and kept in prison, if, at the end of the day, that person comes out of prison and continues to offend.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I have just given way; I want to make some progress.
In a New Statesman interview published last week, the present Home Secretary sounded entirely unapologetic for the continuing rise in the prison population. He said:
If crime is rising, the prison population is bound to rise.
In simple terms, that seems obvious; but, as I have said, the rise in the prison population is not a result of more people being caught, but a result of the increasing tendency to use prison where alternatives were used before.
Between 1992 and 1996, the propensity of Crown courts to use prison as a sentence rose by nearly 50 per cent., and the propensity of magistrates courts to use prison has doubled. That is the main cause of the rise in the prison population. Is the Home Secretary saying that that is entirely right? Is he content with it, or does he believe, as we do, that the change means that some people are being sent to prison who would be better dealt with by other measures?
Of course, serious and violent offenders should be imprisoned, but should single mothers who have defaulted on fines be there as well? In many instances, prison is an expensive way of making offenders worse, and more likely to commit offences. Is the Home Secretary content with the fact that, as a result of all this, the Prison Service is under such pressure that it must concentrate on containment rather than reducing the incidence of reoffending, which must be one of the main purposes of the vast and increasing amount that we are spending on prisons?

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. I am following his speech carefully, but does he not recognise that hon. Members—regardless of which party they represent—must think first of the victims? Does he not accept that victims want above all to ensure that the "repeat burglar" to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred is taken out of circulation, so that he cannot burgle again for a long time?

Mr. Beith: If the result of the policies pursued in dealing with that burglar is that many more victims are created than would be created by another means of dealing with the problem, we shall have done society no good. Victims of burglaries often become very angry when there is no proper response to what has happened to them. There is a pathetically low detection rate: the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) cited horrific figures from his constituency. That, along with the frequent inability of hard-pressed police to take sufficient action in individual cases, is the cause of most of the complaints that I hear from victims. But what about all the future victims who will suffer if we pursue the wrong policies? We hope that the current Government will signal a real departure from Howardism in that respect, but we are yet to be convinced: so far, the signal is very mixed.
We believe that the Government should introduce the most effective measures possible to protect the public, reassure victims, prevent crime and reoffending, and ensure justice. On the whole, the Bill is heading in the right direction, but we feel that, in some respects, it is unnecessarily authoritarian, that some measures are not based on sound research and that it does not do enough to channel resources into constructive action. We welcome the introduction of local multi-agency crime prevention bodies: that is a sensible and constructive measure, which may be why it was not introduced during all those years of Conservative government, despite the recommendation in the Morgan report.

Mr. David Heath: My right hon. Friend is right: the Morgan report lay on the shelf for far too long.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective and best-costed policing plans of police authorities are based on the building blocks of the local unit of command—the district or divisional commander, working closely with the local authority and the local community? Does he share my disappointment at the lack of clarity in the Bill about the relationship between the local authority strategies that are needed, and the cost of policing plans—and about how the two knit together?

Mr. Beith: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that the drafting of the Bill is clear in that regard. Clarity does not necessarily depend entirely on drafting, but someone reading the Bill might not realise how the system ought to work. For instance, I feel that in two-tier local government areas district councils have an important part to play, and district councils often correspond—either by themselves or with other districts—to police command areas within police authority areas. Those are more local and immediate units than some of the larger police areas, and a crime prevention strategy needs that local focus. I am sure the Minister agrees that that is how matters should proceed, although the drafting does not make it clear.

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is also important—there has been some misunderstanding about this—that county councils in two-tier areas play a full part in district council strategy. Neither tier should be left out.

Mr. Beith: That is true, but there is sometimes a bit of jealously between counties and districts. Counties sometimes want to take over more of the responsibility than is appropriate, given the need to engage local communities much more fully in crime prevention.
My problem is that the county council in my part of the world is more than a little old Labour. However, we support the introduction of local youth teams, and the creation of a national Youth Justice Board. We strongly support Lord Ackner's amendment asking for the creation of a standing advisory council on the criminal justice and appeals system. It was opposed by both Front Benches, but it recognises that crime is a complex phenomenon which requires a considered and comprehensive response. If the present Government genuinely reject the ways of the previous Government, they should show their commitment to openness and sound research by accepting that proposal, or a modified version of it. I found the arguments used against it largely trivial: they could be summarised as "Do not give me any good advice, because I might have to take it". Given the experience of the previous Home Secretary, we can imagine the way in which soundly based research advice was received in his office. I think that the new Government should break with that tradition, and recognise that a standing body can work efficiently and expeditiously, and create a climate of consensus in regard to sensible measures.
We recognise the need for many of the new orders in the rest of chapter I of the Bill, but we feel that in some cases the standard of evidence required is too weak, and that the potential sanctions are too strong in relation to the procedure involved. Definitions are vague, and judicial discretion is too limited. I am sceptical about whether the parenting orders will be of much value in practice. We fully support developing parental support, education in


parenting and help for parents; we believe in parental responsibility. The Government run the risk of fining and ultimately imprisoning law-abiding parents for the actions of out-of-control children and finding that the orders are useless in dealing with parents who are themselves the cause of young persons' problems. A young person may be escaping from some of their criminal activities.
We welcome the proposals for the creation of racially aggravated offences, and share the belief that that sends a message that racism is unacceptable in this country. We are pleased that the Government have accepted the Liberal Democrat argument in another place to extend the principle to racially aggravated criminal damage. We want to look more closely at some outstanding issues in this part of the Bill, and we ask the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate to extend the principle to crimes that are motivated by the sexual orientation of the victim. We must look at the issue in that context.
In the area of youth justice, we welcome the introduction of a statement on the principal aim of the youth justice system. I wrote to the Home Secretary in November suggesting that he should do just that. There is a need to widen the statement to include the balancing of welfare and justice considerations, which is at the heart of much of the lack of public confidence in the youth justice system. Many people feel that the system is too welfare oriented and that it ought to have regard to justice and reparation to society. The balancing of those matters must be clear in the statement.
We would also appreciate the Government's thinking on extending the practice and principles of the Scottish child hearings system to England and Wales. It is a proven system in Scotland. Why is more attention not being paid to how much we could learn from how well that system works, when considering the reforms in England and Wales on which people are embarking?
We support measures to cut delays, particularly in the youth justice system. Sensible procedural changes can be made, but I do not think that improvements can be obtained on the cheap without risking delays and bottlenecks elsewhere in the system. If a rigorous target is set but fresh resources are not provided, the chances are that some other part of the system will pay the price. All the attention is shifted, and problems arise elsewhere. I questioned the Home Secretary earlier about my doubts as to when he will be able to meet the pledge on persistent young offenders.
We are disappointed that, for the time being, the Government will continue the practice of holding remanded 15 and 16-year-olds in prison, which is contrary to what they said in opposition. We share the fears of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders that sending juvenile defendants to penal establishments is a
recipe for criminal contamination, intimidation and, all too often, self-harm and suicide attempts".
Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons recently provided us with his hard-hitting and thorough thoughts on that and related issues. I hope that the Government will heed those words. It is unacceptable to continue to increase the likelihood that young offenders will continue to offend by putting them in adult penal institutions.
We are opposed in principle to local child curfews. We think that they are a heavy-handed gimmick. It was a good idea for grabbing headlines in the run-up to the election,

but it is not a good idea in practice or an appropriate response to young people under the age of 10 being on the streets at night. It is impractical to such an extent that the Home Secretary seems to be admitting that it is an experiment rather than a solid proposal.
I asked what research the proposal was based on, and I received a vague answer. I do not think there is any research evidence to show that a child curfew system is needed or will work. There is nothing it could do that powers in the Children Act 1989 or common-sense action by a police officer who sees a child wandering around late at night could not do. It could have damaging effects in terms of signalling to younger people that they will be subject to collective punishment and that their overall civil rights can be taken away. I do not think that such a system would be much used.

Caroline Flint: One of the most disturbing sights when I was campaigning last year before the general election was of children as young as eight, nine and 10 on the streets at 9.30 or 10 o'clock at night. Current powers have failed to protect those children and to make sure that they are not on the streets at that time of night.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the response to a disturbing sight is a curfew. If a police officer finds children wandering the streets and clearly at risk late at night, he has an opportunity to talk to them or to take them home. Social services departments can use Children Act powers for such purposes. The notion of saying, "This is a no-go area for children" is unsatisfactory. Many of us played cricket in the street until it was dark, and in my part of the world it gets dark at 11.15 pm in the summer. We did not expect to be told that, thanks to the local council, a curfew had been imposed and that there would be no more cricket.
The right hon. Member for Gorton probably thinks that a curfew should be in force by about 5 or 6 o'clock. Other Labour Members think that a curfew should extend to an older age group. Before long, we would be back to the days when people shut the gates of the town that I represent and tolled a curfew bell, which still rings at 10 past 8, so that everybody could be safely locked up in their homes. We may find that a curfew would be contrary to the provisions of the European convention on human rights, which the Government are properly ensuring can be enforced in our courts.
I should like to speak about the serious issue of sex offenders and what should be done about such offenders who have been released and about whom there is so much public concern. On television at the weekend, the Minister of State said that, in consultation with others, he was developing some ideas on what could be done. Let us see them in the form of a Government amendment in Committee. Let us begin to discuss the matter openly and not confine the discussion to the Home Office. If, after detailed examination, it seems that the ideas are not developed to a form that will allow them to be included in the Bill, the new clause or amendment that contains them could be withdrawn. Why should we go through the process of debating a Bill in this Session when the


Government say that they cannot look at such matters until a possible new Bill is being drafted in the next Session?

Mr. Michael: It would not be responsible to present half-formed amendments simply to stimulate debate. The Home Secretary made it clear earlier that when ideas have been worked up he will present information to the House to allow a debate. The right hon. Gentleman should give us credit for the fact that we have been open. We have told people that we are trying to find solutions to these difficult problems. Rather than simply mounting a defensive exercise, we have said, "Let us deal with these problems openly. Let us discuss them."

Mr. Beith: My definition of openness is not saying that one intends to be open, but presenting proposals. That is not a criticism of the Government, but they should get away from the idea that they will lose face if they present proposals in an early form and are obliged to change them or even take them away because, on examination, they prove to be unsatisfactory. The public would like the process to begin now. To process the Bill without considering that seems odd.
The Government must acknowledge that many of the tools that are available to reduce crime will not be in the Bill and cannot even be found within Home Office powers. They involve most other Departments, especially those that deal with local services and communities. They include creating opportunities, promoting positive activities, providing education and training, creating pride in local areas and environments, diverting young people away from crime and improving the child care system, through which so many offenders have passed in their formative years. They have often been in residential parts of the child care system or have experienced unsatisfactory foster care. The majority of those that one encounters in any prison have been through an unsatisfactory aspect of our child care system.
In a sense, it is not even the fault of Home Office Ministers that they cannot solve all the problems of crime. The fault lies much wider and that is a lesson for government as a whole. Introducing a criminal justice Bill every year, a practice which was developed by the previous Government, will have a much more marginal effect on crime than some of the issues that I have listed, and it will have a much more limited effect on the extent to which crime continues to cause so much distress to our constituents.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches now applies.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The legislation is welcome. It is the work of a Home Secretary and a Government who are determined to address the tidal wave of yobbery that accompanied the Thatcher decade. [Interruption.] Oh yes it did, and made a misery of the

lives of so many of our constituents. It is evidence that a clear sense of purpose and strategic vision are in the process of being restored to our criminal justice system.

Mr. Hawkins: >: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mullin: I am confined to 10 minutes, so I will not give way. Forgive me.
I welcome the measures that are designed to deal more effectively with youth crime and to render youth justice, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has sometimes said, resembles a secret garden, more effective. I welcome especially the measures to speed it up. The abolition of the presumption that children who are aged between 10 and 14 do not know the difference between right and wrong is long overdue; I am not persuaded by the argument that that rule has been in place since the reign of Edward III. I welcome, too, other measures that are designed to encourage young offenders to confront their crimes and to make reparation to their victims.
I do not share the view that the Bill is too repressive. For far too long, it has been apparent that our criminal justice system is utterly ineffective against persistent young offenders. For too long, police and local authorities have been tearing their hair out with frustration at their inability to contain that small minority of juveniles who run amok and make the lives of law-abiding people a misery.
Parts of my constituency and those of some of my colleagues have been rendered uninhabitable by out-of-control juveniles, who simply laugh at the law and its representatives. Other hon. Members have quoted examples from their experience. At my surgeries, I am regularly faced with refugees from the poorer parts of my constituency who beg to be evacuated because their lives have been ruined by criminal youths, against whom the law appears to be ineffective.
Last year, an elderly gentleman came to see me who had made the mistake of buying his council home in a once respectable area that was subsequently destroyed by yobbery. As a result, he is trapped. His neighbours, all council tenants, were rehoused years ago, but he is marooned in an unsaleable house that is surrounded by dereliction. Four houses on either side of his are vandalised and boarded up. Behind him, nine or 10 consecutive houses have been abandoned.

Caroline Flint: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mullin: I cannot because I have only 10 minutes. Forgive me.
Some houses have been fire-bombed. That gentleman has a net over his greenhouse to catch incoming missiles. When his wife died just over a year ago, even the cars of the mourners came under attack from stone-throwing youths. That poor man sits at home at night in terror of the next brick coming through his window, so when someone talks to me about civil liberties, I say, "What about the civil liberties of my constituent? What about the civil liberties of men and women who break down in tears at my surgeries as they describe the anti-social behaviour that is going on around them, which has blighted their lives and those of their children?"
I do not mean to suggest, and I am sure the Secretary of State does not mean to suggest, that the Bill is any kind of panacea. The Thatcher decade, when it was every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, has left us with a legacy that will take years to repair. The bills are still coming in. The genie is out of the bottle and will not easily be put back. For years, we have been manufacturing, almost as an act of policy, an underclass of unskilled alienated youths who are a danger to themselves and to everyone around them.
It will take more than a single Act of Parliament to resolve the crisis, but the Bill is a good start. To work, it will require police, local authorities and other agencies to work together. I am glad that this is beginning to happen in my constituency. The Bill will add some new weapons to the armoury of the people who are doing their best to clear up the mess that was left by years of neglect, but no one pretends that it will solve all the problems.
Nor, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, should the Bill be viewed in isolation. It represents only part of a coherent strategy for restoring our battered social fabric. In the long run, the only way in which to make a real difference is to put young people back in touch with the world of work and education: to give them a reason to get up in the morning and a purpose in life. That is the object of the welfare-to-work programme that was launched earlier this week, and the Bill should be viewed in that context.
It will be alleged—indeed, it has been alleged—that some of the Bill's measures—child curfews, for example—are hopelessly impractical. I do not think that we should get too hung up on that. They will be pilot schemes. They are discretionary and, if they do not work, we can try something else.
I see the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed laughing, but he rightly said that Governments should not be afraid to back down if something does not work. Personally, I think that this will work in some areas, in some circumstances, but let us see and let us not get too hung up about it. Let us not be too dogmatic or prescriptive. What is important is to find out what works and what does not. What does not can be discarded. The important point about the Bill is that it widens the armoury of measures that are available to people in the front line.
I have two other more general points. First, nothing in the Bill should be an excuse for increasing the overall prison population. Indeed, I hope that one or two of its measures—home detention curfew, for example—will reduce the prison population. Prison does not work except as an expensive means of containment and then only for so long as containment lasts. The present mushrooming prison population is jeopardising all progress—I acknowledge that there was progress under the previous Government—in providing humane and constructive regimes. We have urgently to find viable, effective alternatives to imprisonment where those are appropriate. The Select Committee on Home Affairs is examining that matter.
Secondly, if we are to make a serious impact on disorder, we have to reverse the huge increase in the number of school exclusions. Where children are excluded, we have to ensure that a programme exists either to help them back into school or to provide a meaningful alternative. All too often, that is not

happening. Only the other day, a man came to my surgery and pointed out that two excluded primary school children in his neighbourhood seemed to spend most of their days hanging around the streets.
If that trend is allowed to continue, we are storing up big problems for ourselves. Technically, of course, it is a matter for the Department for Education and Employment, but the Home Office has an obvious interest, because, as sure as night follows day, today's excluded schoolchildren will be tomorrow's criminals.
In passing, I welcome clause 33, which abolishes the death penalty for treason and piracy. Life imprisonment for
slandering, the King, Queen or heirs
still seems a little on the steep side, but at least we are removing an anomaly that is becoming an embarrassment to us in international forums where we urge abolition of the death penalty on countries such as Russia.
I touch on a matter that is not addressed in the Bill, but was mentioned briefly by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: diversion. So much of the Home Office budget is spent either on policing or locking up criminals, but almost nothing is spent on diverting vulnerable young people, who can often be identified at an early stage, into constructive activity and away from temptation. Breakout, an excellent scheme in my constituency, operates during school holidays, providing youngsters in one of the most desolate parts of Sunderland with constructive activity, including trips to the seaside and countryside, which, although only a few miles away, they might never otherwise see.
Every year, the scheme caters for 600 or 700 kids. The total cost is less than £30,000—the equivalent of locking up one juvenile for nine months. However, the money has to be raised piecemeal. The organisers never know from one year to the next where the funds will come from. The city council, the police, local businesses, Save the Children Fund and even the Member of Parliament chip in.
It is time that more attention was paid to diversion and that such schemes were properly funded. They should be held up as examples of best practice, and funding should be placed on a stable basis. It is far more cost effective than having to pick up the pieces after the damage has been done. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consult his colleagues in the Department of the Environment and other relevant Departments and come forward with a stable funding plan for a nationwide programme of diversion.
The Bill is a major step forward. It should be viewed not in isolation, but, alongside welfare to work, as part of a coherent strategy for repairing our damaged social fabric after two decades of neglect. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends and commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: I pay tribute to the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), under whom crime figures dropped for several years, and to the current Home Secretary and his Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), whom I have always found thoughtful and constructive in their approach to the serious problems that we are dealing with.
Crime figures have risen inexorably in the past 20 years, particularly those for violent crime. Members of Parliament often seem powerless in the face of that. Every year, we pass criminal justice legislation, full of hope, but the figures carry on getting worse. Perhaps it has something to do with the way in which we operate. Perhaps such matters should be dealt with by Select Committees rather than Standing Committees to allow hon. Members from both sides with a common interest in tackling the problems of crime and law and order to discuss matters and move forward away from the normal antagonism of party politics.

Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Malins: No, I have no time.
An all-party approach on these critical issues would be greatly preferable.
The Bill deals largely with youth crime. I congratulate the Home Secretary on focusing on that area. He will realise that crime is not just a Home Office problem. It also concerns the Department for Education and Employment. A good school is not merely one that turns out pupils with a large number of grade As at GCSE—a good school spots discipline problems and truancy early and takes steps to deal with them, because they can lead to crime; a good school encourages sport, particularly among young boys, because that can turn them away from crime; a good school produces pupils who do not turn out to be criminals, but who deserve a grade A in good citizenship.
Come with me on a trip to one of the courts where I sit as a recorder or stipendiary magistrate. Have a look at the average defendant in front of me. He is almost certainly a young man of 18 or 19. He has had a rotten education and has never had a job. He has come from a broken home and has bad housing. His parents do not give a damn and do not even turn up at court to support him in his moment of trial. Juvenile crime is a huge problem which gets worse and worse. In the long term, it will be immensely damaging to this country.
Far too many of those young people are involved not just in crime, but in drugs. I was sorry that the Home Secretary did not say much about drugs. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, diversion from crime is an important issue. We are top of the European league for the number of 15-year-olds experimenting with cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines. The link between drugs and crime is clear and must be dealt with. I forgot to tell the House that the odds are that the young man in court whom I mentioned a moment ago is a drug addict. He is in court for burglary. He burgles not because he wants the goods, but because he needs to sell them to raise money to fund his heroin habit, which can cost £500 or £600 a week.
When that young man goes to prison, the situation will be no better, because drugs will be freely available. Banisters regularly plead with me not to send their client to prison because drugs will be more freely available there than outside. In 1996–97, there were 21,700 positive drugs tests among prisoners. In spite of the good efforts of many charities in prisons, the problem has not been

dealt with properly. We must break the vicious circle of drugs leading to crime, leading to prison, leading to release, leading to more drugs.
I welcome the drug treatment and testing order in the Bill, but more needs to be done. The appointment of a drugs tsar is probably gesture politics. Prisons need to be totally cleaned out of drugs. We must conduct research into whether there should be compulsory medical treatment of drug addicts. Research in America with the drug naltrexone has been useful. There is an increasingly strong argument that those who sell class A drugs should be treated more harshly by the courts because they purvey great evil and are responsible for a huge and disproportionate amount of crime.
Where do parents fit in? They fit in a lot better if there are two of them. Many of those who appear before me come from one-parent or broken families. We should make divorce more difficult and strive much harder to keep parents together for the sake of children, buttressing marriage in every way possible through tax breaks to keep families together. I am worried about the parenting order, because I do not think that requiring them to attend counselling and guidance sessions weekly will work. It is fanciful and unrealistic to expect to be able to compel people to be good parents. Good parents do not need such an order and bad parents will put two fingers up to it. Parents who do not turn up to court to support their children—parents who do not care—are likely to put a brick down the throat of anyone who visits them with an order to attend court for parenting lessons. That is the reality of life. The orders are fanciful and bureaucratic. A breach by a parent on supplementary benefit resulting in a fine of £3,000 will only clog up the means lists of our courts and will get us nowhere. Too much bureaucracy is involved.
There are some questions about the anti-social behaviour orders. What is the difference between the clauses on anti-social behaviour orders and sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986? They are both summary only. Why will an offence under the Bill be indictable as well as non-indictable? Why might a breach of an order result in five years in prison on indictment for a juvenile, whereas someone offending under sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 would have no such stringent penalty?
I congratulate the Home Secretary on many aspects of the Bill, but more examination is needed. There is not enough emphasis on the problems of drugs. My constituents are troubled not just by crime, but by the perception of crime. The Government must find the money for more closed circuit television. They should spend rather less on speed cameras and police cars and rather more on police boots, because boots are made for walking. People throughout the country want to see more policemen walking the beat, because that provides them with a great deal of comfort. I wish the Bill good luck.

Ms Hazel Blears: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The issues are of huge importance to the people of Salford. I found some of the comments by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) depressing and pessimistic. The Bill is full of hope for the people of the constituency that I do my best to represent.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for visiting Salford last week. He spent a great deal of time with local people in one of the most besieged


communities in the country. He came to Langworthy, in Salford, and spoke with local people about the huge problems that they face, not only with crime but with disorder.
I should like briefly to give the House some statistics, because the volume of crime in my city is overwhelming. My communities are under seige and in crisis. I think that hon. Members will be genuinely shocked by the figures from only the past four weeks. In the past four weeks, in the police F Division, we have had 180 burglaries of dwellings and 168 burglaries of business premises. We have had 255 vehicles stolen, and 207 thefts from vehicles. We have also had 76 woundings—in a four-week period.
As for disorder, we have had 356 incidents of juvenile nuisance and 138 domestic disputes. We have had 445 various "suspicious circumstances". We have also had 1,228 incidents that were not recorded as "crimes". In a four-week period, 1,431 key crimes have been recorded in F Division.
The volume of crime daily facing local people is what grinds them down and depresses their spirit. I believe that the Bill's provisions will give them the morale and confidence that they need to begin to fight back.
Many local people are frightened and intimidated by the prospect of even getting involved in reporting crime. I remind the House that the horrific figures I have quoted deal with only recorded crime. All hon. Members know that under those figures are many layers of crimes and incidents that go unreported because people do not want to become involved. They fear harassment, intimidation and retribution. Such fears are why we have had to establish in our city, not only a witness support scheme, but a witness protection scheme—to protect witnesses from the very real fear of personal violence that some criminals, given half a chance, would mete out to them.
Police in our city are working extremely hard to tackle the problems. A recent operation—Operation Jellyfish—was aimed specifically at youngsters aged between 10 and 14, and involved video surveillance. Police videoed youngsters committing crimes—such as theft from vehicles, damage and all types of vandalism and anti-social behaviour—and then visited parents with that video evidence.
Previously, when police went round to young people's homes to accuse children of involvement in anti-social behaviour and crime, parents—perhaps some of those parents mentioned by the hon. Member for Woking, who do not care about their children—often said, "My son or daughter couldn't possibly have been involved in that crime." However, when faced with video evidence, parents' reactions have been tremendously encouraging. Some of those parents have begun to take responsibility for their children's actions, because the evidence has been incontrovertible.
In my city, we have to rely on video surveillance and police action, as local people are finding it very difficult to come forward, because of intimidation, to give evidence against their neighbours. In many cases, we know the identity of the criminals who are committing one offence after another. In Salford, unfortunately, good families—rather than the criminals, who are not apprehended or dealt with effectively—are living behind bars and numerous locks, almost in steel cages.
Problems in many inner-city areas, such as Salford, are about not only crime but disorder. Although our police can probably cope with some of our most serious crimes, the detection rate in Greater Manchester—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said—is appalling. I am sure that a similar situation prevails across the country.
Disorder causes police the most problems. If police are to deal with serious crime, they cannot constantly be on the streets trying to control behaviour in the community. Orders dealing with anti-social behaviour will be most useful in dealing with that type of situation. They will apply to anti-social families, who often roam the streets of my city with impunity, causing misery and mayhem to the decent people who are trying to uphold standards.
The anti-social behaviour orders will be especially useful because the civil burden of proof, rather than the current higher standard, will apply. The orders will therefore be easier to obtain. Obtaining evidence also will be easier, as such a heavy burden will not be placed on local people. Currently, they are required to come forward personally to give evidence, and subsequently to face retribution. Breaching an order may result in a sentence of up to five years, which may well cause some criminals in our communities to think twice about doing so.
The proposed reparation orders will confront young criminals with the effects of their crimes on their victims, and make them repair the damage that they have caused. The orders will be more effective than the numerous cautions and fines that are currently imposed. Some criminals have absolutely no intention of paying their fines.
Curfews imposed on youngsters under 10 have been criticised by some hon. Members for potentially being ineffective. However, curfews will send out a message in the community that it is not right for youngsters under 10 to be roaming the streets—not only at 9.30 pm, but, in my city, at 11 or 12 at night. I know a youngster of six who regularly sleeps in the park. Such things are happening in our inner-city areas. If we have to resort to measures such as curfews, so be it. I agree that they are a drastic measure, and I do not want people's freedom to be limited. I remember being out fairly late at night when growing up in Salford—the inner-city—but it was a safe place to be. It is no longer a safe place to be for youngsters, because of the influences to which they are exposed, the damage that is done to them, and the abuse to which they might be subjected on the streets of our cities. As I said, if we need curfews, so be it.
The Bill's provisions will start to bring confidence back to our communities, which, in recent years, have had the heart knocked out of them. Conservative Members are reluctant to accept the link between unemployment, poverty, family breakdown, the benefit culture and crime, but those factors are undoubtedly related. My city is living evidence that mass unemployment has a dramatic effect not only on crime but on community disorder.
Things are beginning to change in my city, and I should like to give one or two examples of positive ways in which local authorities, police and communities are working together to tackle the problems. Their actions will be helped and reinforced by the Bill's provisions.
We have the safer Salford scheme, in which our local authority is spending half a million pounds annually on closed circuit television, security, fencing, creating areas


of defensible space and youth outreach work. The youth outreach work is not being done in youth clubs, as some of our children will not go to them, but by sending youth workers out to estates and the areas of greatest disorder. They are bringing in youngsters and re-engaging them with the community.
Extra police officers have been funded by our single regeneration budget. In one case, a local housing association has provided funds to secure extra police officers to help in improving an area in which its properties are located. By focusing the work of dedicated police officers on the areas of greatest need, we will begin to restore order where there is currently mostly chaos.
No longer do we have problems with disorder only on large council estates. The biggest disorder problems in my constituency are in areas of privately rented property belonging to absentee landlords. One area has 200 absentee landlords, who do not vet their tenants but will put anyone in housing simply to get the housing benefit. Those landlords have no stake in the community. Our communities have dissolved almost overnight because of uncaring landlords who are interested only in a quick profit. We will have fundamentally to address that issue.
In Salford, we have a couple of excellent schemes, such as the Street to Stadium Trust, which is trying to divert young people from crime by using sport, art and other activities to re-engage them. Those schemes say to youngsters, "You will not be written off. You have talents and skills. Let us help you to make the most of them, rather than being involved in crime and anti-social behaviour."
At our local high school, we have embarked on an experiment of an alternative curriculum for youngsters who, by 14 or 15, are completely disaffected from school. The curriculum has been in operation for only two terms, and applies to a group of 20 youngsters. Last year, those youngsters rarely attended school. They were truanting and on the verge of permanent exclusion, which would, inevitably, have been followed by involvement in crime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to cut the hon. Lady's speech short.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I greatly welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, particularly because it gives me a chance to speak about one or two aspects of the Bill—in which I have had a long-standing interest, especially its provisions dealing with serious crime committed by juveniles. However, I should like to say first that it is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), both of whom made powerful speeches, to which the House will have listened with great care.
Like the hon. Member for Salford, I welcome the success of closed circuit television. I share her concerns about absentee landlords. However, there are grave concerns that Labour Members have been unwilling to recognise what the Home Secretary graciously recognised in his opening speech: many of the successes have been the result of the previous Conservative Government's actions.
Conservative Members have been greatly concerned that, over many years, Labour authorities have been working hand in glove with a number of absentee landlords who have been tied up with local government corruption in many cities. I use those words advisedly. [Interruption.] In many documented cases, those links have been proven. The hon. Lady should look at the record of Labour councils and their links with absentee landlords and those involved in housing benefit fraud.

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: I will not, because I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) refused to take my interventions because of the time limit. I shall not be able to take interventions either.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South about the importance of recognising the need to devise alternatives to custody where possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking and I serve on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which the hon. Gentleman chairs. Yesterday morning, when some members of the Select Committee visited Sherborne house, we had the opportunity to see a good example of a project that provides an alternative to custody. I pay tribute to the dedicated and experienced senior probation officers who are running that project with great success. It deals particularly with people who would otherwise have faced custodial sentences for muggings and street crime.
It may come as a surprise to my hon. Friends to hear me, as someone who has always been a tough law and order spokesman, supporting any idea of alternatives to custody, but I recognise that there are occasions when the courts look for a way in which to break somebody's cycle of drugs, imprisonment, more drugs and more imprisonment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred. Projects such as the one that members of the Select Committee saw yesterday can provide an opportunity to break that cycle.
I refer to one or two specific aspects of the Bill. I hope that, if I am lucky with the Committee of Selection, I shall be able to serve on the Committee that scrutinises the Bill, so that I can go into greater detail than I can in only 10 minutes. The Bill has been referred to as something of a Christmas tree—anything can be hung on it. I hope that that is not so. I prefer to describe the Bill as a portmanteau. There are many good aspects to it—and that is no surprise.
Recently, as the Home Secretary was generous enough to acknowledge, there has been more of a bipartisan approach to criminal justice. Many of the Bill's proposals were originally planned when the previous Government were in office. Before Labour Members take too much credit and say that this is a wonderful new Labour Bill, they should remember that most of its proposals came forward under the previous Government. If the verdict of the electorate had been different—[Interruption.] Labour Members, some of whom have not been in the House very long, may smile, but if they check the facts with their Front-Bench team, they will realise that many of the Bill's proposals were coming forward anyway. We all know that, and the Minister knows that better than anyone.
One can trace the history of many of the proposals in many of the speeches and policy documents of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and


Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Home Secretary. The Minister and I have debated these issues many times, particularly in the 180 hours of debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, when he was in opposition. He knows that many of proposals before us owe their origins to that Bill and subsequent Bills during the previous Parliament.
I particularly welcome the provisions on electronic tagging. To reinforce my earlier point and the fact that we on the Conservative Benches so much welcome the belated conversion of Labour Members to some of the things in which Conservatives have always believed, I shall quote the words of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the then Labour spokesman, who said in a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in 1990:
Electronic monitoring is a dangerous and irrelevant concept. It is wrong in principle … It has enormous implications for civil liberties".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 274.]
We recognise the Labour party's very belated but none the less welcome conversion to matters in which we have always believed, such as electronic tagging.
I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), about the importance of young people not being out on the streets late at night. Although there was some hilarity when she intervened, she was quite right. All of us as Members of Parliament worry when we see very small children on the streets at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. We know that the parents of those children are irresponsible. We know that, sometimes very sadly, those children's lives are tragically ended when they fall into the hands of the very paedophiles whom the Government are rightly taking steps to control. The Bill encourages good parents to be sensible and ensures that the courts have powers to impose curfews when parents are not sensible. That is one of the most welcome aspects of the Bill.
From my experience of practising at the Bar in courts, particularly juvenile courts, my years serving on the Bar Council and from three years on its inner cabinet, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking about drugs in prison. One of the ways in which I would like to toughen the Bill—I hope that we shall succeed in doing so in Committee—is by taking further steps to control the use of drugs by those serving prison sentences. It is absolutely right that we take firm steps to try to ensure that prisons become, as far as possible, drug-free zones. We know that that is not so at the moment.
As my hon. Friend said, defence advocates frequently present cases to him and many others who sit as recorders, assistant recorders and judges, that allowing a defendant to go to prison will worsen his drug problem because of the extent of drug use in prison. We must stop that, and the Bill may give us an opportunity to toughen controls on drugs in prisons, particularly drugs supplied by those visiting convicted prisoners serving sentences.
We sought to address the problem by increasing search powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. The Minister may remember, because he was the Opposition spokesman on that Bill, that we were able to toughen powers for police officers to search for drugs. I remember in particular that the former Member for Milton Keynes,

North-East and I tabled an amendment that gave greater powers to search for drugs under somebody's hat, because drugs were often hidden under the hats of Rastafarian criminals and Rastafarian visitors of those serving sentences. That was well known to everyone. It may sound trivial, but for police officers and prison officers, the point was valid. That is a small example, but one which I hope will point the way to opportunities to toughen provisions in the Bill.
Before I run out of time, I want to refer to the matter first raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, about clause 50. The Government added it to the Bill only in the House of Lords, but I think that they will think again about it. As my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, there is great concern that prosecution duties, even in uncontested hearings, are to be given to people who are not legally qualified. As I said in my intervention on him, it is a duty of any prosecutor in court to raise any relevant matters. Serious offences may be dealt with in uncontested hearings. This is not a matter of circling the wagons to defend the legal profession. It is of concern that somebody who understands the law should consider serious offences and matters affecting the liberty of the subject.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I want to make three main points. Colleagues have spoken about the effect that the legislation might have on their constituencies. Before I talk about that, I should say that not all the youth of Britain are throwing bricks through windows. Not all the young ladies of Britain are single, unmarried mothers. Not everybody who lives on an estate in my constituency is a criminal. In fact, the vast majority are not; they are good citizens seeking to earn a living, if they can get a job. They want decency, security in their old age and opportunities for their children. We should bear that in mind. The purpose of the Bill is to protect precisely those people.
I want to read out an extract from the Hull Daily Mail, my local newspaper, of 27 March. Under the headline "Vandals halt estate buses", an article states:
Night-time buses to a Hull estate have been cancelled after a series of vandal attacks.
Stagecoach has pulled the plug on services to Bransholme between 6.30pm and 9.30pm until next Wednesday, after bricks were thrown through windows of their vehicles.
The attacks have been carried out by children as young as 10-years-old.
In one incident on Monday, a piece of rock was hurled through a window with such force that it travelled the width of the bus and out through the other side …
Two years ago, children believed to be as young as four were blamed for attacking buses on Bransholme, injuring passengers and drivers and causing £6,000 of damage.
That is horrendous, but it is made even more so by the fact that there is only one road into the remote north Bransholme estate and one road out. There is only one bus service and, because of the poverty, very few people own cars.
The behaviour of those louts and young kids has not only led to criminal damage—which is important but not as important as the danger inflicted on bus drivers and passengers—but has put an estate almost under siege,


albeit in an entirely different way from that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears). In any event, it prevented old people from going to bingo. People could not get home from work without having to walk on dark nights, as they were then, through narrow lanes along that road. People were in considerable fear.
What is there in the Bill to deal with children in that age range? There are parenting orders, parental control orders, child safety orders and anti-social behaviour orders, all of which could help to deal with the age range involved in the incident that I have outlined and with their parents. Like other hon. Members, I have seen children of six or seven pushing babies in pushchairs. That is frightening, and something has to be done. It is not a question of wanting a nanny or draconian state; it is a question of ensuring young people's safety.
I deal now with absentee landlords, who were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. The previous Government poured millions of pounds into the south part of the Bransholme estate, but the council tenants who had bought their homes could not keep up their payments, and some houses were sold to absentee landlords. Legislation enables a landlord to get rid of a tenant, but what if the landlord himself will not act to get rid of a tenant because he is quite happy to receive the tenant's housing benefit, which comes straight to him? That leads to someone in my constituency having what he calls his extended family calling at all hours of the day and night, knocking on the door and asking for drugs. The neighbours are afraid to give evidence, and the police and the local authority are not able to do anything to eject the tenant. Charges could be pressed—the police are quite happy to do so—but the tenant cannot be got rid of because the absentee landlord refuses to act.
I have written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) about the matter, but I have been very disappointed with the replies that I have received. Whatever we think of private property in this instance, landlords who are prepared to keep such tenants should be deprived of their property.
I deal now with clause 33, which I regard as extremely important. The House has the opportunity to get rid of capital punishment for all civil criminal offences, if that is not a contradiction in terms. I am especially happy that clause 33 will amend, among others,

"(a) section II of the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 (occasioning disturbance) …
(b) section XII of the Act of Supremacy (Ireland) 1560 (penalties for maintaining or defending foreign authority);
(c) section 3 of the Treason Act 1702 (endeavouring to hinder the succession to the Crown etc. punishable as high treason);
(d) section I of the Treason Act (Ireland) 1703 (which makes corresponding provision)".

I regard those amendments as a bonus to the balanced constitutional accommodation that we are seeking at the talks in Stormont, although if the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) knew about it, he would probably dive into the Thames following the tricolours.
Clause 33 is important because it means, or I hope it means, that we are now in a position to sign protocol 6 of the European convention. Paragraph 4.13 of the White Paper relating to the Human Rights Bill states that signing it would
make it impossible for a United Kingdom Parliament to re-introduce the death penalty for murder, short of denouncing the European Convention. The view taken so far is that the issue is not one of basic constitutional principle but is a matter of judgement and conscience to be decided by Members of Parliament as they see fit. For these reasons, we do not propose to ratify Protocol 6 at present.
I stress the words "as they see fit". If both Houses of Parliament agree to the clause, will my hon. Friend the Minister of State say that we can now ratify protocol 6? If we accept clause 33, the House of Commons will have said that it wants an end to capital punishment.
When he winds up, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that the Government will accept the will of the House and, more important, that we can sign protocol 6. Or will he say that we are going to have to wait for a Government amendment to the Human Rights Bill? I do not mind which answer he gives, but if the House has decided that we should sign protocol 6 and remove the obscenity of capital punishment from our system in relation to ordinary criminal law, I hope that he can persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to do the same for military offences.
Finally, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) in congratulating our noble Friends in another place and in the Council of Europe who have argued for the abolition of capital punishment, but I especially congratulate Lord Archer of Sandwell, a former distinguished Member of this House. He has a history of fighting for civil and human rights throughout the world, but especially in this country and in Northern Ireland. I can think of no greater epitaph than that he had carried the appropriate amendment through the House of Lords and had seen it passed by the House of Commons, and thus ensured that the death penalty disappeared.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Although we represent different political parties, we share many values. Indeed, we have debated many of these matters in Hull.
It is terribly important that the House builds on the consensus that appears to be developing. I suspect that the two major political parties are now closer together on law and order issues than at any time in the past 20 years. I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said. Indeed, I thought that the latter part of his speech was the best that I had ever heard him make in this place. However, given his authority and experience, it does not encourage rational debate when he maintains that all the problems are down to Thatcherite yob culture. I wish that life were so simple, but it is not. If the problems are entirely the fault of the Conservative Government and especially of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, why are they so prevalent throughout all western nations? We have to try to tackle the problems together: coming out with simplistic statements does not help at all.
In many ways, I do blame the Conservative Government because, like most Governments, they followed legal fashion. In the late 1980s, when I was parliamentary private secretary to Lord Waddington at the Home Office, distinguished judges were telling the Home Secretary that we were sending far too many people to prison, and that every piece of research showed that prison did not solve anything. Lord Waddington and my boss at the time, now Lord Patten, took the judges' advice and started to make it more difficult for judges to send people to prison. That was the legal fashion at the time and, as a result, my own Government were guilty of making a major mistake, although their action was applauded by legal opinion and all other political parties at the time.
The nation owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for the way in which he reversed the results of that fashionable legal opinion. He has been castigated by the great and the good of the legal establishment ever since and his name is mud with many people, but now, not only the Conservative party, as one would expect, but both the main political parties accept much of what he did. Whatever Labour Members think, much of the groundwork for the Bill was laid in the Conservative manifesto. We have to work together.
Recent Home Office research clearly shows what we all know, which is that
the key factors relating to criminality are being male; being brought up by a criminal parent or parents; living in a family with multiple problems; experiencing poor parenting and lack of supervision at school; playing truant; associating with delinquent friends; and having brothers and sisters who offend.
The single most important influence on a child's development is that of the family. We talk too glibly about "the family" and, if we want to be politically correct, we say that all families are equal. But not all families are equal. The same Home Office research states:
For both males and females, those who lived with both natural parents were the least likely ever to start to offend … The difference in offending rates between those brought up by two natural parents was statistically significant for both males and females.
Those quotes are from "Young People and Crime" by Bowling and Graham, which was published in 1995.
Twenty per cent. of all recorded crime is committed by juveniles, so anything that the Bill does to solve that problem should be welcomed; but I fear that the Bill only scratches the surface. Why are all western countries facing similar problems? It is because we have created a sort of yob culture, not through what some Minister did or did not do five or 10 years ago, but through a general decline in religion, ethics and morality. Parliament is absolutely powerless against those trends, but we have to have the courage at least to make a start. It did not help when the previous Parliament, when my own party was in office, made divorce even easier than it had been previously, despite the fact that some of my colleagues and I fought that Bill line by line.
However, we have to start somewhere, so I welcome parenting orders and anti-social behaviour orders, even though, like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I believe that they will be bureaucratic and

difficult to implement. In its briefing, the Law Society acknowledges that anti-social behaviour is a serious problem in some areas, but it makes a good point when it says:
A range of civil proceedings already exist which should adequately deal with these neighbourhood problems. If they are not used, it is because the 'victim' is not helped to make use of the civil system and may not be eligible for legal aid. Local authority or police solicitors should be responsible, as is proposed for these new provisions in this paper".
There is absolutely no point in the Government introducing a new criminal justice Bill or disorder Bill every year, while not providing adequate resources through legal aid to implement what is already on the statute book.
Many people who, like me, have practical experience in the criminal courts of this country know that magistrates and judges, especially after the work of the past five years, have adequate powers to deal with the problem; what they do not have are the necessary resources. The way to deal with young offenders is not through bureaucratic parenting orders, but through having more secure places available to magistrates. Magistrates are sick and tired of people like us—parliamentarians—lecturing them when they have the powers, but when every time they want to lock up a young thug who is terrorising a local estate there is no secure place available.
Such problems are not confined to typical inner-city areas, like Hull, North or other Labour areas. Some people think that Gainsborough is a pleasant rural constituency in Lincolnshire, but I can take hon. Members to the Park Springs estate where there is a road which is devastated, with a whole row of houses boarded up, and where people are terrorised. The most powerful part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South came when he quoted the case of the gentleman who had made the mistake of buying his council house, but who could not sell it and whose life was made a misery. Our people who live in estates are fed up. We must have courage: we must not continue to pretend that providing new legislation every year and having orders here and extra powers there will solve the problem; we have to give the resources to police and magistrates.
We cannot solve the problem by pretending that slick improvements in the administration of justice will achieve anything, but we make that mistake again and again. We should be proud of our legal system; we should be recognise the fact that not everyone who comes before the courts is guilty and that people must have a fair trial. Listen to what the Bar Council says
Even where a defendant admits his involvement in a particular offence, there may be a substantial amount of negotiation prior to entering a guilty plea and, even without negotiation, it is rare that all the facts of the case as set out in the prosecution statements are accepted. In mitigation, facts may be presented to the Court which run contrary to the prosecution case and decisions concerning the acceptability or otherwise of what is advanced in mitigation must be made on the spot by the CPS lawyer in court. Without a lawyer present, there would be a risk of further hearings or that the defendant will be sentenced on an unduly lenient basis.
Those are people who actually practise law and who know what they are talking about, but we are going to allow non-lawyers to take important decisions.
Let us not fool ourselves that any slick solution proposed in the Bill will solve the problem—it will not. Crime has been rising inexorably because of a breakdown


of moral values in society. The only way to deal with that breakdown is to give adequate resources to our courts and to the police.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), used the words "we believe" 24 times in his speech—it was more of a confession than a speech. We in the Labour party also believe: we believe in the good sense of the electorate in returning a Labour Government last May. One of the principal reasons why so many Conservative Members lost their seats in the general election was the Conservative Government's appalling record on crime and disorder.
I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his outstanding record over the past 11 months. He is a Home Secretary who is committed to bringing crime under control; he is the Home Secretary who abolished the primary purpose rule and who is taking action against illegal immigration advisers; he has introduced several other measures relating to race and immigration; and he established the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. On the issue of crime, he has been tough on hooligans and provided extra support for victims.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is no longer here. He ridiculed the work that has been done in respect of drugs, but the appointment of the drugs tsar has been one of the most effective actions taken by the Labour Government. As one who served on the Home Affairs Committee when it reported on the problem of crack cocaine and the way in which it has pervaded society in America, I believe that the work of the drugs tsar is extremely important in combating drugs.
I therefore pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to his excellent ministerial team, one of whom—the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—is here, for the work that they have done, and pledge my continued support for them in their fight against crime.
My right hon. Friend visited my constituency last June and went to one of my most difficult estates, Northfields. He saw what 18 years of fear and neglect—18 years of the creation of fortress Britain—meant to the people of Northfields. He had the opportunity to have tea with Dolly Juby, one person in an estate racked with crime who feared going out by day—let alone by night—because of the large amount of criminal activity there.
My right hon. Friend also met members of the local tenants' association and re-asserted his commitment and that of the Government to the creation of a crime policy that involves various agencies. The partnership approach is the most important consideration in the Bill—bringing the police, tenants' associations, schools and, indeed, local businesses into the fight against crime.
I never used to support closed circuit television. In fact, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is no longer present, I used to be critical of it, because I thought it affected people's civil liberties. However, it is one of the only means by which we can fight crime on housing estates. Recently, I went to Thurnby lodge in my constituency and met local

campaigners Paul Newcombe and Ricky Thomas, who are at the forefront of the campaign launched by local residents in support of greater video surveillance. They believe that it is an effective use of resources. That is why we fully support what the local chief constable, David Wyrko, and Leicestershire constabulary have done in the fight against crime.
I heard the horrific statistics mentioned by many of my colleagues. In fact, there was a 9.5 per cent. drop in recorded crime in Leicestershire between April 1997 and March 1998 because of the effective work done by the local police and the local partnerships that have been created. In October 1997, the safe school initiative was launched and a new initiative—motorcycle watch—has also been created. The Home Secretary's visit to Northfields has been followed up to ensure that time, resources and police person power are used on estates of that type.
I must highlight two more issues. First, I urge the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I recently met to discuss the issue, to try to include in the Bill a provision on hit-and-run drivers. They know that we have a long-standing major campaign in Leicester in support of giving the police greater powers to arrest people whom they suspect of hit-and-run driving. It is odd that there is a loophole in the law that prevents the police from arresting someone whom they suspect of committing that offence.
In 1993, I introduced a Bill to deal with the problem. Initially, the Conservative Government opposed it, but, on the very day the election was called, I received a letter from the then Home Secretary saying that the Government would support the creation of a new offence. At my meeting with the Minister of State, I was pleased to hear that this Government also support the measure. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also supports it and the Minister for Roads has written to tell me that she supports the creation of such an offence, as has the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.
We need a new offence to deal with hit-and-run drivers because of the many people who have been killed or injured by them—for example, 84-year-old Bill Carter, who was knocked down and killed as a result of the actions of a hit-and-run driver, which is why his daughter Carmel and his son-in-law have helped to launch our campaign for the legislation to be amended. I hope that the Government will be able to ensure that something is done—if not by amending the legislation, by assuring us that they will introduce legislation in the near future to deal with that gap in the law.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary again—now that he is in his place—on what he is doing on race. He is the first Home Secretary to tackle racial discrimination seriously. I do not know whether this is an unparliamentary term, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what a silly man the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire is for saying that the Conservative Government did not have an opportunity in 18 years to introduce legislation to combat racial harassment and attacks. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, he and others had been urging the previous Government for 18 years to do something about it. Now, we have a Home Secretary and a Government who are prepared to do something.


The statistics are appalling. In 1988, there were 4,383 reported incidents of racial harassment or violence, and between 1995 and 1996, there were 12,222 such incidents. It is estimated that, in 1991, as many as 130,000 racial incidents took place—26,000 involved vandalism and 32,250 assaults. That is why the Government's commitment to ensuring that something is done is absolutely clear.
I must also pay tribute to Sir Herman Ouseley, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, who has worked hard to ensure that the issue remains on the agenda. Legislation is not enough to change people's attitudes. We have to do a lot more to ensure that our multiracial country shows that it guarantees the rights of minorities and celebrates its cultural diversity. I know that legislation will not change those people who commit racial assaults, but it is an important step along the way and it sends a message from this place that we will not tolerate such action.
To quote my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary:
There is still discrimination and prejudice and too few opportunities for black and Asian people, too many glass ceilings, too many closed doors".
Also, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, speaking at Brighton last year, said:
We cannot be a beacon to the world unless the talents of all the people shine through.
Legislation is a way in which we can show the black and Asian community that Parliament wants the talents of all its people to be recognised and that anyone who would prevent that from happening will be dealt with severely.
Finally, the Solicitor-General, closing the debate in another place, said:
In our view, this is a sensible, wide-ranging Bill. It is ambitious and innovative."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1997; Vol. 584, c.593.]
I am certain that the Bill will enhance this Government's reputation as a Government who are tough on crime and the causes of crime.

Mr. Damian Green: I, too, must start by congratulating the Home Secretary—my congratulations are perhaps more surprising than some of the others that he has received during the debate—on the intellectual journey that he has taken to arrive at this Bill. In his opening remarks, and more particularly in his article in The Times this morning, he described clearly how everything that the Labour party had been saying about law and order for his entire time in politics until the past couple of years had been wrong.
It was brave of the right hon. Gentleman to admit that. I can only wish him joy and success in trying to educate some of the hon. Members on the Benches behind him into cutting themselves off from their previous prejudices. From some of the remarks and noises made from a sedentary position, it was clear that, whereas the Home Secretary may have made a considerable intellectual journey, it has not yet been made by the rest of his party.
I also pay tribute not merely to the contents of the Bill but to its size and timing. The fact that the Home Secretary has produced it in the first Session of this Parliament is a tribute to him—and, more particularly, to his predecessor. The many actions taken by my right

hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) not only did good in themselves, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends pointed out in the debate, but achieved something extremely unusual for any Minister in any Government. It would be unusual enough for a Prime Minister, but it is particularly unusual for any other Minister. Those achievements have transformed the climate of debate in Britain on law and order and the measures appropriate to achieve its objectives.
One of the greatest tributes that could be paid to my right hon. and learned Friend is the fact that one of the Labour Government's flagship Bills is the wide-ranging Crime and Disorder Bill, which contains measures which, only four or five years ago, practically every Labour Member of Parliament would have described as unacceptably authoritarian. Many Conservative Members would have described them as common sense, and they supported the former Home Secretary in the many measures that he introduced, as they support the measures in the Bill that on proposals made by the previous Government and their Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary will be glad to hear that I am about to stop embarrassing him with my congratulations, but, before I do so, I must congratulate him on joining the ranks of the authoritarians, as he would have described them in previous years. That is where his journey has taken him. It has taken him to a more sensible place than that which he and his party occupied for much of the past 20 years.
Before the Bill goes into Committee, it is vital to flag up some of our individual concerns. The Bill's intentions may be good, and many of its measures welcome, but it is clear that, in some areas, the Government have allowed their rhetoric to run away from the practicalities. In particular, the many measures that rely on local authority action require careful consideration by the House this evening and in Committee.
The reliance that the Government propose to put on local authorities in their law enforcement strategy is startling. Local authorities will have to work with the police to apply for anti-social behaviour orders, they will be responsible for crime and disorder strategies, and they will have to set up a local child curfew scheme. Many new responsibilities are being put on local authorities, and, as ever, the essential question is where the money will come from.
We have already had a notably skewed and ungenerous local authority settlement this year, and one assumes that that will continue during the Government's lifetime. The Government are therefore expressing pious hopes that local authorities will be able to contribute to the fight against crime and disorder—we all hope that they will be able to do so—without giving them the tools to do the job properly.
One fears that many local authorities will take their responsibilities seriously, and remove money from other budgets. It would be cruel and counter-productive if local authorities, in their desire to meet those important new responsibilities and to help many of those who live on estates—we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House of the many problems that exist in certain areas—take the money from the education or social security budgets to put into the crime prevention budget. Unless and until the Government provide the resources


for local authorities to have a proper and effective law enforcement strategy, they are in danger of cruelly deceiving people.
There are also legitimate concerns about the many measures in the Bill to cope with children and young teenagers. One of the more interesting parts of the Home Secretary's article in The Times this morning was his point that the Government have moved from listening to pressure groups, and have started listening to real people living in real communities, who have always been much more sensible—that is, much more tough—about law and order than the pressure groups.
It is worth the Home Secretary's while to take note of the various representations I have received from bodies that could not be regarded as wild pressure groups, such as Barnardos and the Children's Society, who say that the compulsory attendance part of a parental responsibility order, under duress and threat of a fine, is likely to exacerbate tension between parent and child, and, in some instances, result in family breakdown and admissions to care. Clearly no one would want that, but if responsible bodies such as Barnardos see it as a possibility, I hope that the Home Secretary will take it seriously.
There are obviously gaps in the Bill. It is still not clear whether 10 and 11-year-olds might be detained alongside rather older teenagers. That would clearly be an extreme threat to their welfare, and would, I suspect, be counter-productive in the long run. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that that will not happen.
The Government are also failing to deliver on their pledge to remove 15 and 16-year-olds from adult gaols. That was a practice which the Prime Minister described as a scandal when he was shadow Home Secretary. I assume that he has not changed his view, so I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to deal with that fairly quickly.
The principal danger that the Government will have to address is that the Bill has been over-hyped and will raise expectations too high. I hope that the Minister will deal with how the Bill's success can be measured. Labour Members have made many rather cheap and simplistic points about the failure of the previous Government's law and order policy. I simply point out that, for some years now, there have been consistent falls in the crime rate, and that is the best way of measuring the success of a law and order policy.
Will the Bill's success be measured by falling crime rates, falling juvenile crime rates or falling prison numbers? I and, I am sure, the House, will be grateful if this evening we can be given some clear idea of objective measures by which the Bill's success can be measured.
The Home Secretary has made a long journey in the right direction. I hope that the measures he introduces as a result will be successful. I have doubts about some of them, and I should like to know how he will measure the success of his law and order strategy.

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Unlike the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I welcome the opportunity to have Scottish legislation piggy-backed through on the Bill. It would have been

faintly bizarre and somewhat bewildering for the Scottish people if some of those generic issues relating to anti-social behaviour and sex offending had not been considered in this way when there is such pressure on legislative time.
Given the time restraints, I want to address particularly clauses 18 and 19, which deal with the generic issues of anti-social behaviour and sex offending orders.
Stirling, in its own time, has gained a certain notoriety in all sorts of ways, but, in January 1997, the douce town hit the media images across the United Kingdom when we saw, perhaps in many respects for the first time, a vigilante mob in an area of the town seeking to expel a recently released paedophile.
The sight was not edifying. The forces of law and order seemed almost unsure of their role, and the local authority was wrestling with two conflicting and almost self-exclusive roles. As a social services agency, it had a duty of care to the released prisoner, and, as a housing department, it had a duty to provide accommodation for someone who had just been released from prison. Yet, at the same time, it was the statutory guardian of the children in the community in terms of their safety, and was also, obviously, the education authority, responsible for the schools which surrounded the area into which that person had moved.
The paedophile was removed from that bed-and-breakfast accommodation and taken to another hostel, only to be traced in that community. Women from the first area were joined by mothers in the second area. Having spoken to those parents later, I can tell the House that they were almost embarrassed by their actions, but not one has expressed regret to me about the activity in which they had to be involved. As parents, they saw that their primary duty was to protect their children, and they did not see any other route by which they could do that.
One of the most welcoming features of the Bill is that it will provide an alternative route to guarantee public safety. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the way in which he has confronted vigilante mob rule over recent days. We have to come up with a system of managing the freedom of the sex offender or of deciding whether that sex offender should be released. Parents, children and communities across the country need to feel safe. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, because, if we do not challenge the vigilante approach, there is a grave danger of driving sex offenders underground, which would be an even greater danger for communities.
That is why I particularly welcome the extension of supervision orders within the Scottish element of the Bill where there is a serious perceived threat to the community or to public safety. I reckon that parents, knowing that the extensions exist and that there are severe penalties for breach of them, will feel some comfort.
I give a word of warning to the House. We must remember that the majority of sex offenders are not from outside the network of family or friends. More often that not, children know the sex offender, and they may be from within the family circle. Many complex relationships must be addressed.
I welcome the Scottish Office initiative to establish an expert panel under the chairmanship of Lady Cosgrove, who is the only female High Court judge in Scottish legal


circles. I trust that that expert panel will take forward some of the recommendations of the recent Skinner investigation.
The other aspect that I want to mention introduces an element of poetic irony. One of the leaders of the vigilante group against the paedophile was hounded out of her home by local people only a few months later. They were fed up with her family's well-documented anti-social behaviour. She learned from bitter experience that, once one is branded as anti-social, as a paedophile or as somebody who is not acceptable within a community, it is incredibly difficult to be rehoused. One ends up being shunted around the local authority system.
I hope that we look in Committee at ways in which local authorities work collectively to solve those strategic problems. I am pleased that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has already started on that route.
Like most hon. Members, I have seen my fair share of serious distress, with people coming to my surgery detailing appalling anti-social behaviour. Some might call it a clash of life styles, but that is too comfortable a term. I do not know why people need to play loud music in the middle of the night or to hoover at 4 am. I find it bizarre that people hammer nails into the wall at 6 am in order to put up pictures. That does not take account of the loud, violent behaviour, foul language and consistent intimidatory behaviour that some people have to put up with.
The Law Society of Scotland briefed Scottish Members of Parliament today on some of the clauses dealing with anti-social behaviour. It said that, in its eyes, the breach of the peace element of Scottish law was sufficient to deal with some of the issues.
With the greatest respect to my legal friends in the Law Society, that view is out of touch with reality. Councils often cannot get the necessary action under the breach of the peace element. It is a one-off incident approach, and a cumbersome mechanism. If anybody wants to know how it operates, they should ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish) because he was a witness in a lengthy and dreadful court case dealing with an anti-social family.
I am talking about a sustained pattern of anti-social behaviour. My council area has, on average, 40 active cases in which a portfolio of evidence has been gathered and diaries kept. I am sure that everybody here has seen the diaries that people are asked to keep.
In those cases, a meticulous gallery of information has been gathered, and mediation and conciliation have been tried to an infinite extent. In spite of that, the local authority has managed to gain only five court judgments on anti-social behaviour over the past two years. That does not give confidence to those on the receiving end. The current system in Scotland is not working to deal with anti-social behaviour. People in my communities in Stirling have no confidence in it, because it does not deliver for the good resident.
Perhaps the last word in my contribution should go to somebody on the receiving end of all this. A woman from Dunblane came to see me, and said:
Our nerves are raw because of the continued stress of all the noise, loss of sleep and frustration of complaining endlessly and little being done. We feel tension every time we turn into our street

to come home … I have cried daily … everything seems so futile and so very unfair. The bad language is awful … these people have made me a prisoner.
I want to liberate that sort of prisoner. This Bill is a way of starting that process, and I wish it a good wind.

Sir Robert Smith: I will try to be brief to allow as many hon. Members as possible to contribute.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) finished on a point that is relevant to most of us from our surgeries and that is the problem of anti-social neighbours and trying to get across to people who are not living in such circumstances how devastating it is to have one's family home destroyed by the activities of a neighbour. Until something is done about it, it is a life sentence for the people living in those conditions. Obviously, both sides of the House welcome the fact that the Bill attempts to tackle those issues.
The Bill must not be oversold, and people must not be given a false sense of a quick solution, in the belief that a simple law here or there will change things. I have the same briefing from the Law Society of Scotland as the hon. Member for Stirling, and I believe that we may need to look at the relevant clause to see whether it makes improvements.
There is a recognition that there are sitting on the statute book laws that, if properly used, could help people in those situations. We must ensure that the agencies involved—the police, the council and everyone else—are making full use of the resources already available to them, and that we are not just bolting on an extra law in the hope that it will deal with the problem. Clearly, resources are part of the problem and the solution.
The fear of crime has already been mentioned; we must try to deal with those fears. We must recognise that politicians play a key role in creating fear of crime—in our desire to outbid one another in sensationalism, we can overstress the incidence and nature of crime, so that there is greater fear than the statistics warrant.
It could be argued that, by an empirical measure, bobbies on the beat do not effectively fight crime, but they may be an extremely effective way in which to tackle the fear of crime. The fear of crime among elderly people, in particular, is easily fuelled, and if they feel able to leave their houses because they see bobbies on the beat, the money is well spent—it liberates people and gives them more control over their lives.
In my constituency, the police in the south division of Grampian have put more bobbies on the beat as an experiment, which has been extremely well received—the pilot studies in Banchory are now spreading throughout the constituency.
As we have sat through so many debates on the Government of Scotland Bill, I say to the hon. Member for Stirling that almost all these matters will be dealt with by a Scottish Parliament. I find it strange that she does not believe that the Bill needs true scrutiny by Scottish Members holding Scottish Ministers to account.
Shelter raised the issue of how clause 23 would work in practice—it may be drawn far too widely, and could be used to evict people who are sent to prison for committing crimes that do not affect their neighbours. That contradicts


Scottish Office guidelines, which suggest that local authorities should do all that they can to ensure that prisoners are not made homeless—the Government are telling local authorities not to make prisoners homeless, but they are also promoting a measure that could make prisoners homeless without tackling the core issue of violent and drug-related crimes. I hope that the Government will consider constructively amendments to that clause.
As the Government have such a large majority, there is a danger that constructive amendments will not be considered as openly as possible—I hope that that will not be the case. There is also a danger that we may believe that because an issue is important, the mere fact that it is covered by the Bill will deal with it; that is not necessarily so.
We also need to consider whether the Bill has been properly drafted in terms of Scottish law. Clause 20, for example, gives powers to a chief constable, but I wonder whether the powers should rather be granted to the procurator fiscal. Clause 30 deals with race crimes and racial harassment, and, in Scotland, we may want that to be defined differently, so that it takes into account religious motivation. Again, I hope that the Government will view debates on these matters in Committee constructively.
I see from the notes on the financial effects of the Bill that clauses 81 to 87 will be introduced as pilot schemes. That highlights the important question of resources. If we are to help people to cope constructively with their drug behaviour, we must fund the help that we want to give.
As there is a good deal of consensus on the Bill among hon. Members, I hope that, in Committee, we shall listen to the bodies from outside the House that lobby us, to ensure that the law is effectively drafted and tightly drawn, and achieves what was intended. There is a danger that, after happily passing laws because we agree with the motives behind them, we will come to regret that either they do not deliver or that they deliver consequences other than the ones that were intended—we will regret not listening to the warnings that came from outside the House. I hope that, in Committee, all hon. Members will carefully read and take on board the briefing that we receive—badly drafted laws fail to serve the victims or the wider society that they are meant to help.

Mr. David Crausby: I am sure that all hon. Members agree that crime and disorder not only cause fear and misery, but have a devastating effect on individuals, families and whole communities. A criminal may commit an offence in a split second, but the act will often have long-lasting and dramatic repercussions, sometimes affecting the victims and their families for the rest of their lives. It is crucial that crime and disorder policies should have the desired effect of enabling law-abiding citizens to live peacefully and harmoniously without unnecessary interference from others.
The Government must be congratulated on the urgency with which they have introduced the Bill—within a year of the general election—in an attempt to tackle the appalling problems of crime, disorder and lawlessness that, in truth, were inherited from the previous Administration.
The Bill is innovative, and contains some imaginative and creative thinking. It will tackle crime head on—such a no-nonsense approach has been a long time coming. We must send out a signal to the criminal perpetrators of so much misery that they and the illegal activity that the country has become familiar with—through compulsion rather than choice—will no longer be tolerated.
The Bill is wide ranging, but I intend to concentrate on three main areas. First, there is the relationship with local authorities. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the major role that local authorities can play in tackling crime and disorder. It is a role which the previous Conservative Government so often brushed aside.
I welcome and applaud the provisions on youth justice, and especially the joint responsibility placed on local authorities and the police to develop and implement local crime-and-disorder strategies in consultation with other agencies. That will enable the community to work together on crime strategies that are adapted to reflect local needs and priorities.
The principle of cross-agency communication has been successfully developed over the past three years in my home town, by the Bolton safer cities project, which has focused on reducing crime, reducing the fear of crime and creating safer cities where economic and community life can flourish.
The result has been extremely encouraging. First, the project's work has helped to break down barriers between the various agencies. In particular, Bolton safer cities tackled and confronted the age-old misconceptions that tackling crime is the responsibility of the police and that looking after young people is the responsibility of social services. Instead, the project has helped to reinforce the idea that the issues are often intertwined and that a collective approach can be much more effective in tackling criminal activity.
One of Bolton safer cities' many initiatives is the partnership scheme, which was targeted in a part of my constituency where recorded crime was the highest in Bolton. Public opinion was that crime was the accepted norm. The successful introduction of the partnership scheme involved housing, leisure, homewatch, the police, the youth service, the probation service and, most important, the community as a whole. As a result, the crime rate in the targeted areas has fallen and public confidence has risen. There has been an improvement in quality of life and the initiative has given residents real sense of belonging.
Most important, the cross-agency approach has helped to achieve a general reduction in crime in the Bolton safer cities areas, which has not been reflected elsewhere in Bolton. For example, in 1996–97, Bolton overall experienced an 11 per cent. reduction in crime compared to 1994. However, in the safer cities target areas there was a 26 per cent. reduction. There was a 5 per cent. reduction in burglaries throughout Bolton, but in the safer city target areas we enjoyed a 41 per cent. reduction.
Those figures clearly demonstrate, at least in Bolton, that a successful partnership between the police and the local authority can greatly increase the chances of winning the battle against crime.
The measures to which I have referred should all greatly improve the present system and help to steer young people away from a life of crime. Such a life undermines their individual welfare and denies them the


opportunity of developing into contributing members of society. Bolton safer cities has discovered through its various projects that a multi-agency approach can help to curtail the deviant behaviour of young offenders and help also to stop them drifting and then collapsing into a life of crime.
The Bolton safer cities project included an initiative called "Breaking the Chain", which focused on involving young people in positive play activities. It was designed to break the chain when children become involved in anti-social behaviour, which can lead to crime, including vandalism, as they grow older. It has been recognised for generations that idle hands create mischief, and that saying is as true today as it ever was.
The Bill, coupled with the Government's new deal for the long-term and young unemployed, is a brave and important attempt to break the mould, and will help to remedy the evil that enforced idleness and criminality inevitably bring. It will help to restore essential public confidence in the agencies that face the daunting task of tackling crime and disorder. Until now, the agencies received a rough deal from all concerned.
The truth is that the police have been fighting a losing battle in recent years, and it is vital that this country realises that crime, particularly youth crime, is the responsibility of all sections of society. Public confidence is essential if we are to have any hope of achieving mutual responsibility in the struggle against crime.
Anti-social behaviour causes distress and abject misery to innocent, law-abiding citizens. It can undermine entire communities. At its most extreme, it can force people out of their homes. Sometimes, as we all know, it can have even more tragic consequences. The anti-social behaviour order will give local authorities and the police the power to restrict the behaviour of those who engage in intimidating and threatening behaviour, and thereby improve the lives of those who are subject to such abhorrent abuse. We must send out a loud and clear message that the activities of those who take a sadistic delight in making the lives of others a misery will no longer be tolerated by British society, and certainly not by the present Government.
On reparation orders, clause 63 contains an innovative approach to making individuals accountable for their actions, which I particularly welcome, as it helps to demonstrate to young offenders the harm that they have caused to their victims and to communities, and provides them with the opportunity to make amends and rejoin law-abiding society. It is hoped that, in the years ahead, this will enable them to become responsible young adults again, and contribute effectively to community life.
The Bill is all about the community, because there is still such a thing. Indeed, the vast majority of people value the community. They deserve a quality community and a quality of life, and we must not allow that to be destroyed by a mindless minority. The Bill is the first step towards ensuring that we will tolerate nothing less.

Mr. Tim Collins: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
I, too, commend the Government on many of the measures in the Bill, which builds on measures introduced under the previous Government; but they are important

and welcome none the less. The measures to accelerate justice, to crack down on youth crime and tackle anti-social behaviour are welcome, and deserve the all-party report that they have received. I wish to make five brief points.
First, as I mentioned earlier, I am concerned about clause 53, which is difficult to reconcile with the Government's commitment to be tough on crime.
Secondly, the Minister would be well advised not to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who urged him to use clause 33 as a reason for signing up to article 6 of the European convention on human rights. That would not be right. The Government, in their White Paper, were right to say that the death penalty—whatever our views on it—will remain a matter for the conscience of Members of Parliament, and this Parliament or any other should not seek to bind its successor and override the views of future Members of Parliament.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) dealt with resources, and, while I agree with the congratulations expressed by many Conservative Members on the activities of the previous Home Secretary, it is worth noting that he used a two-pronged approach. One was legislation—the Bill takes forward the sort of ideas that he was in the course of introducing. The other was persuading the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in each of his last three Budgets, to devote additional resources, above and beyond planned public expenditure, to the police—accorded equal priority with education and health. The current Chancellor has said that education and health alone are his priorities for public expenditure above and beyond previous PES lines. I hope that the Minister will accept our support for any future negotiations that he and his colleagues embark on with the Treasury on the proposition that the police should be given equal public expenditure priority with education and health.
Fourthly, it is worth noting that clause 34, intended by the Government to be the heart of the Bill, lays the important—but sole—duty on the youth justice system to prevent youth crime. I am not a lawyer, unlike many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but, earlier this week, I discussed the Bill with a distinguished and successful defence lawyer, who told me he believed that clause 34, if enacted, would enable a canny defence lawyer to persuade a magistrate or judge that a juvenile offender who might otherwise be sentenced to detention should not be so sentenced. He might use the argument, advanced not least by Liberal Democrat Members, that incarceration could lead to exposure to other criminals and hence to more crime in the longer term.
As Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers alike now accept that there are circumstances in which prison works, I hope that the Government will think again about clause 34 and consider the need to introduce an element of punishment and retribution in addition to the duty to prevent youth crime. That would ensure that the Government's intention behind the clause—tougher sentences—was not abused or misinterpreted.
Fifthly, I hope, at this sensitive time for Northern Ireland, that the Minister will put on record the fact that he does not accept the arguments of those who say that there are political prisoners in Northern Ireland who


should be released as part of any peace settlement. I hope that he will make it clear that no one is incarcerated in any part of the United Kingdom for his political views. People are incarcerated solely for having been convicted of criminal activity. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) claimed this afternoon at Northern Ireland questions that there were indeed political prisoners in Northern Ireland—an outrageous misinterpretation of the truth. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to correct it at the end of this debate.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: I am pleased to have been called in the debate, because crime and its causes—especially youth crime—are of great interest to me. We all recognise that crime and general disorder are a major blight on the lives of many people living in ordinary housing estates—estates undermined by high crime levels.
Last year in my constituency, youngsters from a couple of families caused havoc with their unruly and aggressive behaviour—they made people's lives on their estate a misery. Subsequently, they attracted other badly behaved children, and crime and vandalism in the area escalated out of control. I am glad to say that the problem has largely been resolved now, by the willingness of a number of agencies and the local authority to work together. The Bill advocates partnership with local authorities; youth offender teams will enable the police to work with social services and teachers to tackle youth crime and its causes.
Although the problems on the one estate I have mentioned have improved, the same is not true of other areas in Newark. Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I receive letters every day about graffiti, about plants being kicked over and about garden ornaments being broken. Many would describe such incidents as petty crime, but they are often a source of great distress to the unfortunate recipients.
Youth crime has got out of control, and ordinary people all over the country have suffered. This is by no means an urban issue. Anti-social behaviour is experienced in even the most rural areas. The Bill will tackle the problems that we face with a sense of urgency and with a determination to be effective.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall endeavour to be as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), but I cannot promise to be as succinct.
The Bill has been welcomed by both sides of the House. I hope that I will not spoil the fun of the party by suggesting that one or two matters should be considered a little more carefully before we give the Bill the welcome that many people think it deserves.
Clause 31 abolishes the presumption that a child aged 10 or over is incapable of committing an offence. I wish that we had done that in our time in government. I am glad that this part of the criminal law, which was introduced in the middle ages for good, sensible and humane reasons, is now to go.
It is interesting that clause 32 allows a court to draw an inference from the silence of a child. The chances are that a child will be in court only if accompanied by a lawyer.

A child's silence at trial should not be treated in the same way as the silence of an adult. I hope that the Government will think carefully before exposing children, no matter how naughty or criminal they may have been, to such a risk.
Much fun has been poked at the ancient language of some of the mediaeval and 18th century Acts of Parliament that deal with treason. I make no secret of my implacable opposition to the death penalty for murder. However, I believe that we should not lightly abolish the death penalty for treason or offences against the state, especially during time of war. I say that in the context of the ordinary criminal law, not military law.
I shall concentrate on clause 2, which deals with anti-social behaviour orders. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that that has a Soviet ring about it. I fully understand the points made by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in her powerful and moving speech. Her experience is entirely different from mine. I hope that she will accept that my remarks are disinterested and dispassionate, and are not designed to devalue or undermine her case. The crime figures for the last four weeks in her constituency reflect the crime figures for the last 10 years in mine. The gulf between us is not just political, but based on our different experiences.
The Home Secretary said that this is a substantial Bill. In my view, it is far too big and cumbersome. The Bill is intended to create a safer and more peaceful country. We all agree with that. He also wants to modernise the criminal justice system. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we should be a little more careful about how we go about that before we reach any hard and fast conclusions. I am suspicious of this all-party cosiness. Unless ideas are tested by argument, bad laws can slip through. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who sits as a recorder, sees the consequences of criminal justice legislation. I hope that a little more rigour will be used as the Bill progresses through Committee; otherwise, measures will slip through on a tide of good will, which, although well-intentioned, may have adverse consequences for our law-abiding constituents.
Clause 2 is a dangerous mix of the criminal and the civil law. It gives the police or local authorities a power to apply to a court for the benefit, predominantly but not necessarily, of public housing tenants. As others have pointed out, there are private housing estates that suffer from such problems. Effectively, however, exclusion orders are being created to deal with people who are behaving in an anti-social way.
We must be careful—this observation is not mine originally; it has been made in another place, not necessarily by members of my party—not to create a system of law that discriminates against eccentric people. I mean people who are loosely described as "a nuisance": people who raise eyebrows. We should be tolerant—I say this in the context of what was said by, for instance, the hon. Member for Salford—of people whose lives are somewhat different from the lives that we would like to lead.
Someone said that it was extraordinary that people should want to hoover at 4 am, or to play loud music all night. We should be careful before we pass legislation that could lead to five years' imprisonment. I am having to conflate my remarks, but I am sure the Minister will


understand the point that I am making. We must bear in mind what is involved in leaping from the granting and the subsequent breaking of an order, to the potential of sending someone to prison for five years when the act that constitutes the basis of the breach of that order, if subject to prosecution under the normal criminal law, would not lead to anything like a five-year prison sentence.
That, in a sense, encapsulates my argument. However, I hope that the Minister will also bear in mind the standard and burden of proof in connection with clause 2(4) and (6). I think that he should be careful about legislating by means of Home Office guidance. In another place, the Solicitor-General said that Home Office guidance would be issued with regard to the shape and type of prohibitions. I am instinctively opposed to criminal legislation by Home Office guidance notes, and I ask the Home Office team to bear that in mind.
Let me make a brief point about clause 2(9). In that subsection, the Government are allowing the prosecutor—the police or the local authority complainant—to become part of the sentencing process. The prohibition period can be reduced to less than two years only with the consent of the two parties involved—one of whom, presumably, is the defendant, while the other must be either the police or the local government organisation cited in clause 2(1)(b).
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that my time is limited and that I want to enable others to speak. I hope, however, that he will accept that, although my remarks have been brief, my underlying concerns are much more substantial than time has allowed me to demonstrate.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: Listening to the shadow Home Secretary's speech, I was tempted by the phrase "clutching at straws"—not literally, of course, but there was little of substance in his speech.
It is obvious from today's debate that most hon. Members consider it important that what is said is based on the experiences of people up and down the country. In rural villages, inner cities and leafy suburbs, crime and disorder have become an accepted part of everyday life for too many of our citizens. People leave for work in the morning only to find that their cars have been broken into or, even worse, stolen. They peer through their windows at midnight to find out who is making the noise that has woken their children, only to see a group of 13 and 14-year-olds swigging from cans of lager and bottles of wine. Someone may visit his elderly mother in sheltered accommodation, only to find her in a state of panic and distress after her neighbour has been mugged and badly beaten on her way back from the post office. Someone may find that his teenage son is regularly arriving home late because he is trying to avoid a gang who have mugged him on several occasions. Those are not fanciful scenarios, but real-life experiences in my constituency and many others.
The Bill represents the beginning of a genuine and long-term fight against the acceptance that crime must always disfigure our society. It tackles many of the fundamental questions that are raised day in, day out on our estates, at public meetings and in councillors' and Members' surgeries. Why should I have to tolerate my neighbour's all-night music and constant abuse? Why do parents not know where their children are at night? When

I told parents about their children's abuse why did they swear at me and threaten violence? In my constituency recently and most seriously, why did two 15-year-olds get only a caution when they beat my teenage son so badly with a baseball bat that he sustained a fractured jaw and is currently in a psychiatric hospital suffering acute stress and anxiety? Why does everybody pass the buck, and why does no one seem able to do anything?
The Bill ends years of confusion about the role of the youth justice system and youth crime. Welfare and punishment always represented muddled and false choices. That will be replaced by a cohesive approach, the overriding objective of which is the prevention of offending by young people. Parents will no longer be allowed to avoid their responsibility for the well-being and behaviour of their children. In some cases parenting orders will assist families to rebuild relationships and re-establish boundaries. That needs to be part of a much broader agenda to support positive parenting. Too many of our children are growing up in homes in which parents provide neither love nor discipline. In some families that parenting deficit is being passed from generation to generation.
The Government are also right to remove the presumption in law that children between the ages of 10 and 14 are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Child curfews were scoffed at by the great and the good when they were first mooted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Such people should live in neighbourhoods such as Polefield in my constituency where elderly people are terrorised by young children late into the night. Can anybody justify a young child being out unsupervised after 7 o'clock at night, let alone 9 o'clock?
Ending the farce of repeat cautions and prolonged periods from arrest to sentencing for juveniles will also be widely welcomed. Not only will that ensure enhanced protection for the community, but will allow the earliest possible intervention with the young person to prevent him drifting irreversibly into a life of crime, misery and ultimate social exclusion.
Neighbourhood nuisance reflects the undermining of shared values and a sense of community which pervaded the Tory years. People's quality of life can be shattered by abusive and socially unacceptable behaviour by one person or by a small group. Overnight, people's peaceful home environment can be turned into a living nightmare causing stress, anxiety and, until the publication of the Bill, a sense of powerlessness.
The new anti-social behaviour orders will give local authorities and the police the power to act in defence of decent, law-abiding citizens. The Bill's toughening of racial violence and harassment laws will send a clear message to those who operate the criminal justice system and to every citizen. Racism cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. It is a scar on our democracy, and we are determined to root it out in every area of British life. There must be no excuses for a criminal justice system that has failed to protect members of ethnic minority communities from the racists and fascists who continue to peddle their filth in today's Britain.
The Bill is the first piece in the jigsaw of a strategy to combat crime and disorder. It draws a line under the Tory years, when tough and empty rhetoric that was designed to secure a cheap tabloid headline was the substitute for


effective action. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary speaks rationally about practical solutions and he is on the side of the victim. A partnership at local level has been enshrined in law and includes statutory and voluntary agencies who are required to produce, implement and monitor a community safety strategy. We have social and economic policies to tackle poor education, inadequate parenting skills, youth unemployment and the menace of drugs.
The Government are committed to an overall philosophy that stresses the importance of society and community. We want a Britain in which individuals have not only rights but a responsibility to behave in a civilised way towards their fellow citizens. Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime may be a slogan, but it is the only honest and effective way to minimise future crime and disorder. The Bill is the beginning of new Labour's crusade to reclaim Britain from the criminal and the thug and return it to decent law-abiding citizens. I hope that the House will give it the support that it deserves.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have been instructed to be extremely brief. The statistics that were released yesterday are welcome, and I congratulate the Home Secretary and the chief constable of Hampshire on their role in that splendid achievement. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, it is also proper to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on his role in that achievement. Our constituents' experience of crime will be determined by their perceptions rather than by statistics. Perception, of course, will be determined by their experiences and those of their friends.
Speaking of experience, as I cycled home from this place last night at about a quarter to 11, I came across four youths smashing up a telephone box. I gave chase and cornered one of them. I am glad to say that I assisted the police in securing the arrest of one of the offenders.
Between Notting Hill Gate and Wormwood Scrubs, that is not an unremarkable occurrence. The unfortunate fact, however, is that that experience is common throughout constituencies throughout this land. Only last week, the Bournemouth Evening Echo reported on the rowdy activities of 60 youths in Ringwood. In New Milton, we have a persistent problem of vandalism in Station road. Plants are being ripped up in the recreation ground.
I have had letters from constituents complaining about the agony that they have suffered over two years as a result of a stalker, and then the fellow gets off with nothing more than a suspended sentence. I have complaints from Pennington, of all places, of rowdiness in Ramley road. In January, in the New Forest village of Burley, I came across six drunken youths urinating in a street and attempting a break-in and entry.
This is characteristic of a society that is deeply disordered. I accept much of what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said about that society, but I reject almost entirely his diagnosis of the causes. Those causes go back to the disastrous decade of the 1960s, when society lost confidence in its values and lowered its guard—its immune system, if you like—giving rise to all sorts of cancers.
Like many of its predecessors, this Bill will not be able to deal with many of those causes. That will require greater consensus than currently exists, although I am confident that that consensus will exist one day, as indeed I am confident that the gates of hell cannot prevail against us. However, the Bill is welcome in many respects and will do much. I have complaints from lobby groups about its impact on individual liberty, but this is a time when we should give greater consideration to expediency than to liberty.
My fundamental objection to the Bill is with respect to clause 33. It strikes me as being of little practical value and therefore it would perhaps be a good thing if the Committee were to remove it.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution in this debate.
There is no doubt from the contributions so far that there is consensus in the House that our justice system in general and our youth justice system in particular are ripe for reform. I represent a constituency that would perhaps be stereotyped as leafy and suburban, but in some parts there is a real challenge of youth crime and anti-social behaviour. The Bill provides crucial extra powers to enable us to tackle those challenges.
In particular, the new statutory duty on local authorities and the police has been widely welcomed in Enfield, as it has throughout the country. It builds on existing good local practice. In Enfield, we have an excellent multi-agency approach. In the area of my constituency where we have particular problems of anti-social behaviour—the Oakwood ward—the Addison avenue working group already brings together the police, local authority, local secondary school and youth service, and I get involved as the Member of Parliament.
Springing from that, we have the Oakwood focus group of local residents, again meeting the police, local authority and other agencies. Much has come out of that approach: improved conduct between the police and residents, better co-ordination between the police and local authority, and greater confidence for victims to come forward and to report crimes.
Labour Members are talking about tackling not only crime, but the causes of crime. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to take part in the opening of a new football and basketball pitch in the heart of the Oakwood ward. The idea for the pitch came from the young people themselves, who secured funding from the London borough of Enfield and from the London Marathon Charitable Trust. It is an example of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Nothing can excuse youth crime or anti-social behaviour, but providing improved facilities for our young people will divert many of them to more positive activities. That is an inherent part of any successful anti-crime strategy.
The ugliest feature of the youth crime that I have witnessed is the sustained harassment of families from ethnic minorities. The new offences of racial harassment and racial violence are long overdue. In the past year, an elderly Jewish couple in the Oakwood area of my constituency have had a star of David daubed on their front door in the middle of the night. An Asian-run corner shop faces daily harassment, including bricks through the


windows. A nearby Asian family have had eggs thrown at their windows. The perpetrators were found only when the family rigged up an amateur video camera and caught them on film.
That has been going on for years in the Oakwood area, but many of the families have felt isolated, because their concerns have not been taken seriously by the authorities. That has started to change with the multi-agency approach that I have outlined and the excellent work of the Enfield racial incidents action group. Awareness is increasing among local people, the council and the police. Practical solutions are being delivered: pinhole cameras to catch offenders; the prosecution of offenders; and the council using its power as a landlord to act against council tenants whose teenagers are responsible for much of what is going on.
The Bill will make our job easier. The new offences of racially motivated crimes—in particular racially aggravated criminal damage—speeding up youth justice and the new anti-social behaviour orders will make a big difference to tackling crime and the causes of crime throughout my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited Oakwood about a month ago and saw what is going on. If we involve the public, we can ensure that the statutory duty makes a real difference to people's lives. I am confident that the people of my constituency expect that from the Bill. I am delighted to support it.

Mr. Richard Allan: It is clear that there is general agreement about the aims of the Bill, but, although we all share the common objective of reducing crime, in Committee our views may differ on the best way to achieve that. I should like to raise four issues.
First, we welcome the community safety strategies, which may be a way to start tackling the causes of crime, which have received far too little attention. The causes of crime will best be addressed by involving local authorities, which have influence over many factors relating to housing, poverty and services. I have seen some good schemes in areas such as the London borough of Sutton, where the council has got to grips with the issues.
Secondly, we welcome the racial offences provisions. That is a serious matter for thousands of our citizens. The 1996 British crime survey shows not only that there are tens of thousands of incidents a year, but that ethnic minorities score higher than white people on all the measures of fear of crime. That fear is engendered by their daily experience of harassment. We all welcome having a multiracial society. We must deal with the fact that some groups suffer from greater fear of crime.
Thirdly, we welcome the anti-social behaviour orders and the Conservative contribution about their use. Anti-social behaviour does not mean being young, wearing the wrong clothes or being the wrong colour in the wrong part of town. Anti-social behaviour is malicious, intentional behaviour that borders on the criminal. I hope that the orders will be used appropriately. The Government should reflect on their use, to ensure that they are targeted on the right people. We must catch yobs in the net, but we must not sweep up all sorts of other people who are doing ordinary youthful activities. Kids will carry on hanging out on street corners, as they always

have done. If they are not committing crime or seriously harassing people, they should not be dragged into the criminal justice system.
Fourthly, we hope that the Government will relent and accept that having a standing advisory council on criminal justice matters is a good way forward. They should not continue to use the system that they inherited from the previous Government—a standing advisory committee of newspaper editorials. We believe that a standing advisory council has a function in the modern system and would bring together people at national level to do the inter-agency working that everyone wants.
I hope that the Government will accept that there is plenty of good practice to build on. I refer specifically to Sheffield magistrates courts, which speed up proceedings on young offenders, and the Thames Valley police experiment on restorative justice, which does much to improve the cautioning system. I hope that such practice will be built into the Government's proposals.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Before the general election, I conducted a crime survey—a straw poll—in Burnt Oak ward, and discovered that, in the preceding three years, a third of my constituents had been victims of crime, and that more than two thirds of them went about their business in fear of crime. I have been a victim of crime myself: having had one car stolen and, recently, another one burnt out, I very much sympathise with those constituents.
Last Friday, I paid a visit to our local youth court. Of the 10 cases that I witnessed in the court, a disposition was possible in only two of them, which were linked, with a conditional discharge. In another case, a defendant faced five charges, which went back as far as August 1997. Although it was his third appearance on the charges, it was not his last, as another adjournment was granted for pre-sentence reports. One case was thrown out—it was the defendant's fourth appearance on it—because the main prosecution did not appear. A couple of defendants did not show up, as they were in other courts facing other charges. Another case, which involved a persistent offender, started more than an hour late, because the defendant was already serving a custodial sentence and Securicor produced him first at the wrong court.
I was assured by the magistrates that that was a typical day—illustrating the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of our current youth justice system.
Much could be done to reduce delays in criminal proceedings, by making simple administration changes and improving co-ordination—on witness availability, for example—between police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. Delegating functions to single justices and justices' clerks is a good start, but it is necessary to encourage the more hands-on case management approach that is already being practised in the civil justice system. We shall have to impose penalties on lawyers who cause delay by inefficiency and for no good purpose.
The partnership approach heralded in the Bill is already being practised in my area of Barnet, which has excellent links between the council and police. We hope that the health authority will soon be involved in the partnership. However, in building partnerships, we shall have to include, for example, housing associations—which are becoming landlords of ever larger parts of our communities.


Grahame Park—in Colindale, in my constituency—is an example of a large council estate that contains a substantial number of housing association properties, of which the Warden housing association is the landlord. The estate has typical problems of anti-social behaviour, petty vandalism and graffiti. Residents have become frustrated by the association's lack of action, especially after residents made positive suggestions on limiting access to the estate and improving lighting. We have to hear from those residents and involve them. They have already suffered so much, and building on their ideas should form a part of our partnership approach.
In emphasising to me their support for the Bill and its underlying principles, local police and magistrates have also mentioned the need for more local secure accommodation for young offenders, so that family links are maintained.
A senior police officer stressed to me that fast-tracking and tougher action with young offenders will not work effectively if there is nowhere to house those offenders. He illustrated the problem by describing the case of a female juvenile who was in local authority care but continually ran away—at least half a dozen times. She armed herself with screwdrivers, knives and even shards of glass to injure those who tried to stop her. She was a danger to the community, and police officers were trying to apprehend her. However, all they could do was to return her to local authority care, where the cycle would continue.
The Bill's introduction of racially aggravated crimes and tougher sentencing on offences with a racial element has been welcomed by the diverse ethnic communities in Hendon. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister, in his reply, will confirm that the definition of racial harassment in clause 25(2) will include the Jewish community. We have already witnessed the fact that anti-Semitism can be a very light sleeper, and several members of Edgware's orthodox Jewish community are concerned about a perceived increase in harassment in the area.
From my discussion with my constituents, all the youth justice agencies, the Crown Prosecution Service, police, the local authority and Middlesex probation service, I have no doubt that the Bill has overwhelming support. The Bill's time has come, and I am happy to give it my full support.

Mr. James Clappison: We have had some interesting speeches in the debate, which has been conducted in a constructive spirit. On behalf of the Opposition, I shall seek to respond in a constructive spirit.
I refer straight away to the important points made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about racially aggravated crime, which we have already said we regard as a serious and sensitive subject. His speech struck a slightly discordant note in one respect. I suggest to him that what really matters is what happens in practice. We question how much difference the proposed changes in the Bill will make to what happens in practice.
As the right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) well know, the courts have long regarded a racial element to an offence as

an aggravating feature and have accordingly given higher sentences. The Government have decided on their course, and we shall look constructively at their proposals to see how they can be improved. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would join me in asking the Government why less serious offences of assault and public order are being dealt with by the creation of separate offences, but more serious offences, including wounding with intent, are not to be the subject of the specific offence of racial aggravation and will be dealt with as they were under the old system. There are some important questions of detail to be asked on the matter, and I assure the House that we shall ask them constructively.
The right hon. Member for Gorton spoke with some feeling about burglary in his constituency, and mentioned a specific case. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) mentioned the problems of burglary in her constituency, in a speech that she delivered with some feeling. I appreciate that every burglary provokes strong feeling. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will join me in satisfaction at the substantial fall in the number of burglaries in the latest crime figures. The number has fallen more sharply than the general fall in recorded crime—by almost 14 per cent. That means tens of thousands fewer victims, which is a good thing.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made a very authoritative speech. I was pleased to hear him speak about inner-city areas, which we on the Conservative Benches think are important. He also made some important points about the detail of the Bill. He is absolutely right that we must make the best use of technology, to try to streamline our justice system. Other changes, particularly administrative changes, must not be made at the expense of the quality of justice. Although justices' clerks will be better trained and more professional than ever before, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, magistrates should play the dominant role. We should look particularly at what is done by unqualified staff. We need to maintain high standards of quality of justice in our courts, and we shall consider the Bill in some detail in order to see that that is done.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke with feeling about the abolition of the death penalty for treason, which is an important part of the Bill. We have said—and I think that the Government agree with us—that it should be the subject of a free vote. The hon. Gentleman clearly has his views; perhaps other hon. Members will want to express theirs.
I was very interested in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who spoke from an interesting perspective. He was an opponent of the death penalty for murder, but made some interesting points about the retention of the death penalty for offences of treason in wartime. I am sure that the House will want to consider carefully that very serious subject.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with much of what he said. He raised one important point. He spoke with some feeling about the system of local child curfews and of his experience of playing cricket as a lad in the streets, which I am sure many people share. If local child curfews are to be part of our armoury in the fight against disorder in areas where


disorder has been identified, why should they be restricted to children under the age of 10? The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) spoke about children of eight, nine and 10, but the 10-year-olds would not be caught by the curfew; nor would those mentioned in the newspaper report quoted by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). What is to happen to older children?
We know that, in response to consultation, the Government have received representations specifically on the restriction of the curfew to children under 10. The Liberal Democrats as well as Labour lawyers came out against that restriction. If those two sets of the Government's most loyal supporters are against it, perhaps the Government ought to think again. The Home Secretary mentioned the city of Coventry, but it is also against the restriction, in response to consultation.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked the Government not to be dogmatic when considering amendments to the Bill, and we say amen to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made an important and well-informed speech. It was also authoritative, because he sits in the Crown court and sees the sort of problems that we are discussing. He was absolutely right to highlight the problem of drugs. He spoke about the vicious circle of drugs leading to ever more crime and was right to say that we need to make tackling drugs a higher priority.
We welcome the fact that the Government have implemented our provisions for mandatory sentencing for repeat drug offenders, but we want them to consider how the Bill might be strengthened to deal with not only drugs but the evil people who push them. We want tough action on that.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that one of the best things that the Government had done was to appoint a drugs tsar. I was slightly worried by that, because the drugs tsar has not done anything yet. We await his strategy with interest, because the mere fact of his appointment as a figurehead is not enough. We are looking for substance, not presentation, just as people across the country are looking for tough action. During the passage of the Bill, we shall be considering how the law against drugs and pushers can be strengthened.
I have already mentioned the speech of the hon. Member for Hull, North, who also drew attention to the young people who are well behaved, and we must not lose sight of that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) put before the House some of the moral reasons for the problems that we are experiencing. He also highlighted problems affecting family life. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made an excellent speech, in which he made some important points about resources. He also mentioned the question of 10 and 11-year-olds, to which I shall return.
In that context, it was quite fair of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford to ask what performance measurements the Government are setting for themselves. After all, the Bill sets performance indicators for local and police authorities, which will have to set targets by which they must judge how well they have done. What targets are the Government setting for themselves? How will they measure whether the Bill's provisions are successful? We shall be interested to hear from the Minister the criteria by which the Government will be judging the Bill.
We heard a great deal of hype. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire was right to warn us against going overboard. Let us hear the substance, not just presentation.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) spoke about paedophiles and sex offenders. I appreciate that, coming from Stirling, she spoke with particular force and feeling. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) warned that the Bill was being oversold. He, or another Liberal Democrat Member, said that the Government never came up with anything that was knowingly undersold, and that is certainly a danger. He also mentioned the danger of a Government with a large majority not listening, but we hope that they will listen in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to important differences between the Scottish and English legal systems. To those differences we would add another—why is it that a sex offender order in Scotland carries the power of arrest, when that is not the case in England? That is one of many drafting points to be considered in detail in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made an important point about clause 53, which he was right to draw to the attention of the House. The clause removes the absolute bar on receipt of bail from defendants charged with homicide or rape who have a previous conviction for an offence of homicide or rape. That is clearly a matter of great public concern, to which we shall return.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, in his elegant speech, spoke about the consequences of bad law and how we need to consider this subject with rigour. He made some important legal points about the anti-social behaviour orders and about the sort of behaviour that leads to the making of such an order.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made a good speech, which the House appreciated. The House also listened with interest to the speeches of the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), for Newark (Mrs. Jones), for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). The hon. Member for Newark made some good points in a brief speech, and the House appreciates brevity in these circumstances. We also heard from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
In the brief time left, I shall put to the Minister three points on which I want a specific response, because, in a debate such as this, it is not always possible to cover every important issue. I was a little surprised, although I quite understand the limitations of making such a wide-ranging speech, that the Home Secretary did not address the treatment of young offenders in some detail. That is an important subject, especially given the new sentence of detention and training, on which we have spent some time in the past.
The Home Secretary knows that the Bill contains a power to put young offenders aged 10 and 11 into custody alongside offenders aged 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. That power is not for 10 and 11-year-olds who commit grave offences, for whom provision has already been made, but for young offenders who get into the sort of trouble that is an imprisonable offence when caused by an adult.


Will the Minister of State tell us why that power is being included in the Bill and what is the justification for it? I have submitted written questions on the subject, but the Government's answer is, in effect, "We are bringing in the provision because it is not needed." If it is not needed, why are the Government bringing it in? What is the explanation and what research led the Government to seek such a power?
We also want to know about the Government's plans in respect of home detention curfews. They have introduced a provision for early release of prisoners from their sentence through home detention curfew. To strike a note of discord, the Government know that we do not agree with that course of action, because they are making a mockery of honesty in sentencing and releasing prisoners far too early. Will the Minister of State tell me whether, under the provisions for home detention curfew, a prisoner sentenced to six months' imprisonment—the maximum sentence that a magistrates court can impose for a single offence—will serve a period in custody of only six or seven weeks? Will the Minister confirm whether six months will mean six weeks?
Will the Minister deal with the question of sex offenders? When the provisions for home detention curfew were originally unveiled, Ministers suggested that sex offenders would be eligible in precisely the same way as prisoners serving ordinary sentences of imprisonment. We know that, last week, the Government made a welcome change and in a written answer said that sex offenders would be eligible for home detention curfew only in "exceptional circumstances"—the Minister looks surprised, but that comes from a written answer from 31 March. Does the Minister agree that no sex offender who would be subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in respect of notification and so on should be released early from prison through tagging or home detention curfew? At the moment, it is possible for such a prisoner to be released.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was far too kind in attributing to me the thesis about 15 and 16-year-olds being remanded in custody to adult prisons. It was not my thesis but that of the Prime Minister, who raised the matter on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and made a great song and dance about secure accommodation places. He told the House in that debate:
the places could be achieved without delay. This country does not want to wait years before the problem is dealt with. It wants it dealt with now."—[Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 40.]
So far, the Government have done precious little to deal with the problem. As the Minister knows, the record of this Government is that so far they have provided only a miserable six places in secure accommodation. I see the Minister nodding; he knows that that figure is right because it comes from the Government, but if it has been changed—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to contradict me. I want his response, and if six is not the right figure, will he tell the House what it is and when the Government will end the remand of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons? We shall continue to press him about it—other hon. Members did, too—because that was an early pledge made by the Labour party, presumably in its pre-purge period.
We have witnessed a certain amount of purging of previous history by the Government Front-Bench team this evening. That promise was not a purged promise, but one given early on under new Labour. When will it be made good?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): After six years of speaking from Labour's Front Bench on home affairs it is a pleasure and a relief to debate the first Bill in all that time that goes to the heart of crime and offers hope to communities throughout the country that have been demoralised by crime and disorder. In this measure, we are being tough on crime, but we are also offering hope and opportunity.
During today's debate, we have heard many fine speeches. Indeed, it was probably the best criminal justice debate that I have heard during my time in the House. Many of the speeches were brief but excellent. 1 am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that I will be in the city tomorrow to speak to a full council meeting about our proposals to tackle youth crime. No doubt he will be heckling me.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) support some of our innovative proposals, such as the youth curfews. I hope that he will support us further in the measures that we are introducing. He asked about the provision of detention and training orders. The main purpose is to tidy up the current mess—all the different sorts of orders and provision of secure places around the country. He asked for details of the different types of regimes and the way in which they will operate. He has missed the point, which is that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales will be introduced to oversee and set standards and ensure quality and appropriate provision for youngsters in each of those places.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the sex offenders order. The breach of an order is a criminal offence punishable with five years' imprisonment, which means that it is automatically an arrestable offence under section 24 of the Police and Criminal and Evidence Act 1984, so he is under a misapprehension about the availability of appropriate powers. He also asked about the release of prisoners who are subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The whole point about the reference to exceptional circumstances is that normally sex offenders will not be allowed out on early release. I invite him to read the list of offences and to appreciate the wide range of sentences specified in that Act. There may be exceptional circumstances in which it is appropriate and just that release may apply, but it will not normally apply—and certainly not at all in the extreme cases, which are the ones that have caused the great debate over the past few days about the danger of sex offenders to children.
It is a total and absolute cheek for the hon. Member for Hertsmere to mention secure accommodation. I remind him that I was one of those who challenged the previous Government to do something to deal with the holding of youngsters aged 15 and 16 in adult prisons. We extracted a promise that they would remove them, and they took powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to do so. The only tiny thing that they did not do was to make arrangements to deal with the holding of those youngsters


in secure accommodation. In February 1991, when the Conservative Government made that promise, they calculated the number of places that were needed—but they are still not in place. This Government are serious about their promises and we will keep them. The previous Government made promises, but took seven years not to keep them.

Ms Sally Keeble: With regard to young people, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the excellent bid that has been put in by Northamptonshire to pilot some of the measures on youth offending. I urge him to ensure the approval of that bid, which will be a great success and greatly welcomed by communities such as Blackthorn, to which he spoke earlier this year.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I shall be totally objective and say that we will consider the applications that have been made. However, I take the opportunity of congratulating the authorities in Northamptonshire on the co-operation that has existed up to now. We have learnt lessons from the success of the diversion unit, which has used reparation as such an effective tool with young offenders.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Let me take the Minister back for one moment to the home detention and sex offender orders. As I remember, the governors will decide whether there is any risk in allowing people to be released early. Should we assume from what the Minister has said that the Government will be giving advice and guidance to governors as to which of the specific notifiable offences are to be considered as exceptional in the circumstances?

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We shall be giving clear guidance to governors. We have made it clear, and have acted on that since the implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, that we must move from a culture of waiting to see what will happen to assessing risk and acting to prevent it from turning into reality with another victim. That is the type of approach that we shall adopt in this case, too.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was among those who asked how we would judge success. For his benefit, and that of the House, I echo the words of the Evening Standard leader tonight which says:
Londoners will believe that crime is going down when they really feel safer in their homes and on the streets, and when their insurance premiums stop rising.
It is our intention to ensure that people throughout the country feel safer and are safer. An important element of that is the setting of local targets by the partners—the police and the local authority—which will enable the local community to judge their success, just as we shall be judged on the success of our policies nationally.

Angela Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important way of reducing crime is through local partnerships, and that many local authorities, including my own in Basildon, welcome the duties placed on them by the Bill in that regard? Is my hon. Friend aware that that has already been undertaken without the support of Government and that the authority now welcomes the Government's support?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I saw the enthusiasm of the partners in Basildon—

the local authority, the police and the voluntary sector—when I visited the town with my hon. Friend. Many of those who have already been enthusiastic about working in partnership have been desperate for the Government to provide support for the partnership approach in legislation. It needs a proper structure within which to be effective and within which we can see and measure the results so that we can increase the feeling of safety for the wider community.
Some Conservative Members showed imagination in claiming credit for paving the way for the Bill. That is particularly interesting considering that many of the Bill's key elements were voted down when they were tabled as amendments by the then Labour Opposition to a series of criminal justice Bills. Conservative Members should share my experience of meeting police officers—from chief officers to those at the sharp end—who are filled with enthusiasm for what we are doing in the Bill.
We are offering those police officers a massive challenge. One chief officer told me that we were asking them to measure their success not by how fast they answer the telephone or by how many crooks they catch, but by whether they cut crime. Rather than interim or more peripheral measurements, the real measurement is whether we succeed in the fight against crime. As the Evening Standard said, do we make people feel safer? That is the measurement that we shall apply to the police. We will not ask the police to do it on their own. We are asking them to work with the local authority as partners. We are asking the whole community and all agencies to be involved in the fight against crime.
Another hon. Member suggested that the Bill is rooted in previous Conservative speeches and legislation. Yes, the Conservatives were promising action for years, but it did not come. We supported the previous Government when they got it right, but the only connection between the provisions of this Bill and previous Bills is that our suggestions were voted down. The proposal for reparation was voted down in every year since 1993. The action plan order, the speeding up of youth justice, the anti-social behaviour order and statutory partnerships were all voted down. I welcome the support of Conservative Members for what we are proposing, but if there has been a U-turn, it has not been by Labour Members. I welcome Conservative Members' support for the measures that they have voted against in the past.
I will not be able to deal with all the specific points that have been raised, so I promise to write to hon. Members. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) made a number of points about the legislation. We will consider any constructive amendments that hon. Members may table in Committee. The Scottish clauses will be dealt with by the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office. As I promised earlier, we will propose that they be grouped together so that they can be dealt with coherently as a series of Scottish debates.
I must point out that there is no drafting error in clause 20. It is our intention that the chief constable should have the role of applying to the court for a sex offender order. That is an application to a civil court and it would be inappropriate to give a role in civil proceedings to the procurator fiscal.
It is also the intention—this applies equally to England and Wales—to deal in the Bill with racial offences. The definitions of racial groups in clause 30 and elsewhere build on existing race relations legislation, which applies throughout Great Britain. There would be great problems in attempting to widen the definition.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that the Jewish community is covered by the definition in the Bill. That is intentional in view of the extent to which that community has been the victim of a great deal of racial harassment and violence.
On anti-social behaviour orders and the point raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I can tell the House that guidance, which will be offered, will make it clear that the target is not just odd behaviour or loud music. We are talking about continuous behaviour, over time, which causes harassment, alarm and the ruination of lives. Over the years, the criminal justice system has not been able to deal with the criminal, sub-criminal and violent behaviour that goes on over time.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has only three minutes left and I would like him to say what he intends to do about protocol 6, clause 33 and absentee landlords.

Mr. Michael: As my hon. Friend is well aware, that is covered by the Human Rights Bill rather than this Bill.
I should like to deal with some of the points made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who made some favourable and constructive comments about the Bill. I hope that the debate in Committee will see us looking practically at the issues before us. We will be able to answer many of his points in the detail.
We have considered how the anti-social behaviour orders and the local partnerships can work in a way that will ensure that they are practical. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is no conflict with the way that the policing plan operates, as set out in the Police Act 1996. Indeed, the local strategies will fit well with those approaches and create building blocks that will give an enhanced role to the strategic approach that the police authorities are intended to provide.
I am looking forward to the opportunity of serving on the Committee considering a Bill that contains so many significant and important elements.
As a magistrate and youth worker, I was very frustrated over the years by working in a creaking system that failed to engage young people. Young people were processed through the system as spectators in discussions about the offences in which they were supposed to have taken part—the system often dealt with them so late that they had forgotten what they had done by the time they were punished. The lives of victims were damaged, the community was undermined and the lives of young offenders were ruined.
The Government are taking action. The Bill gives the tools for the job to our partners the police, local government, the courts, parents and the community. That is why I believe that it will be a successful instrument for tackling crime and disorder in the community.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — CRIME AND DISORDER BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown incurred under or by virtue of the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NURSERY EDUCATION

That the Nursery Education (England) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 655) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Heathrow Terminal 5

10 pm

Mr. Tony Colman: I beg leave to present a petition that was promoted and organised by the Putney Society, led, in this case, by Mandy James, convenor of the transport panel, assisted by Christine Reeves, David Radcliffe, Jean Dolman, Brian Towner and Judith Chegwidden, and signed by 5,479 residents of Putney, expressing their opposition to a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. The petition states:
The petition of the Putney Society declares that local residents oppose the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow because the environmental costs will outweigh the economic advantages. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to refuse planning permission for the proposed new terminal.
And the petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Medical Accidents (Compensation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Nigel Beard: Current law and practice are harsh on the victims of medical accidents, as some form of blame has to be established before compensation for injury is due. Even where blame is justified, litigation is protracted, uncertain and expensive. Where an individual suffers permanent injury and is the exception to a general expectation of successful treatment, there may be no blame. As a result, either no compensation is available, or an attempt is made to demonstrate malpractice where there was none. Such claims of malpractice engender a defensive attitude to all complaints, throughout the medical profession and the health authorities.
In some cases, injury may arise through testing or developing a new medical procedure. There are bound to be heightened risks of unexpected side-effects arising from therapeutic innovations. If doctors are to be blamed and punished for taking such risks, they will be disinclined to initiate or test new methods, and innovation will be stifled. That is particularly true of doctors in some high-risk specialisations, such as obstetrics.
Litigation on account of alleged medical negligence is now epidemic in the United States of America, and, although there are many fewer cases in the United Kingdom, the number here has been rising by about 15 per cent. a year for the past five years. A survey in 1996 showed that 37 per cent. of consultants and senior registrars had been sued at least once.
In the time available, I want, first, to demonstrate that current arrangements for compensation through litigation for medical negligence fail both patients and doctors, and risk jeopardising innovation in medicine generally. Secondly, I want to persuade the Minister that a no-fault compensation scheme for medical accidents would overcome most of the difficulties.
Accepted medical practice is the yardstick by which a doctor is measured. That means that a doctor will not be found negligent if a patient is treated in accordance with a practice accepted by a responsible body of medical opinion. A medical negligence trial will therefore focus on defining what accepted medical practice is in the circumstances of a particular case.
The result is that any trial becomes a battle of strength between opposing experts. However, the plaintiff may have great difficulty in finding experts who are willing to testify. Doctors do not like to voice public criticism of their peers. Colleagues in the same authority simply refuse to testify against one another, and witnesses have to be found from another part of the country. For the defendant doctor, however, finding witnesses is far easier. As a result, cases drag on and on for as long as eight, nine or 10 years after a writ has been issued. During that time, no special provision is available to the victim, whose family may have to cope as best it can with a dreadful tragedy.
The outcome is also uncertain. In the case of Whitehouse v. Jordan, late at night Mr. Jordan attended Mrs. Whitehouse, whom he had never seen before. He attempted five or more times to deliver her baby using forceps before deciding to deliver by caesarean section.

As a result, the child was profoundly handicapped. The fact that brain damage was caused in the course of delivery was never in question, but there were huge differences among eminent experts about whether what was done was accepted medical practice.
Mr. Jordan was found not to have been negligent, and, after a process lasting eight years, Mrs. Whitehouse was left to bring up her handicapped child, then aged 11, without any compensation to ease the burden. Equally, to have found Mr. Jordan negligent would have been unjust. He came to the case late at night for the very first time and took a course of action that many medical experts agreed was the right one.
In another case, Wilsher v. Essex, the test of accepted medical practice worked against a young junior doctor, who inserted a catheter into a vein instead of an artery. He asked a senior registrar to check what had been done, who failed to notice the mistake. The judgment of the junior doctor was not by the standards of a trainee or a learner but by the standards of more experienced and qualified colleagues.
Both those cases illustrate how unfair the present system can be to both patients and doctors.
The result of this litigation lottery is that only a small percentage of those suffering from a medical accident ever obtain compensation. Figures from the Legal Aid Board show that only 17 per cent. of legally aided medical negligence actions are successful. That compares with personal injury cases, including road and work accidents, where success rates are 85 to 90 per cent.
There is a view expressed that medical negligence cases are no different from any other negligence cases. The figures show clearly that that is not so. Establishing fault in medical cases is far more difficult than in others.
The litigation system is not cheap. In 1997, Lord Woolf, after his review of ways of streamlining civil litigation, observed that enough money to run a large health service trust was being spent annually on legal costs to deal with medical negligence claims. At the end of his survey, there were found to be 20,000 claims outstanding against the national health service, with over 90 per cent. of those litigants on legal aid. That adds to the overall problem because when a claimant is legally aided and loses, the NHS cannot apply for costs. In 1995–96, the NHS paid out £150 million in medical negligence settlements, with a disproportionate £56 million coming from London regions.
In summary, we have an expensive system to deal with medical accidents, which is not working. It is not compensating victims of medical accidents fairly, and it is subjecting doctors and health trusts to pressures with which they are ill equipped to cope.
Of the cases examined by the Legal Aid Board in 1996–97, 32 received £500,000 or more in compensation. However, the average damages awarded stood at about £4,107. It is disturbing that the cost of those cases was, on average, marginally greater than the compensation awarded, at £4,122.
All this is not just my judgment. The British Medical Association has said:
For many years the medical profession have been concerned about the social injustices of the present tort based system and established a working party to look into instituting a no fault compensation system. Such a scheme, we believe, would relieve the patient of the necessity of lengthy and expensive legal cases, and


base compensation principally on the injured person's need. It is not our intention that such a scheme should protect professional staff if errors were made.
That last point—that the present system, for all its faults, may ensure the accountability of the medical profession—is worth dwelling on. Even today, there is a separate medical disciplinary procedure to ensure professional standards. That system would have to be adapted, but there is every reason why such a revised disciplinary system should continue to operate alongside a reformed compensation scheme. Indeed, it is likely that the absence of prolonged legal proceedings would better ensure that a doctor who is truly blameworthy could be brought to account quickly. Discipline and compensation do not need to be linked.
No-fault compensation schemes already operate in New Zealand and Sweden. Neither system is perfect, but they demonstrate that a no-fault compensation scheme is workable, and appears to deliver benefits to many claimants that the present UK adversarial system does not.
In 1978, the royal commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury—the Pearson report—looked into a scheme for no-fault compensation in the United Kingdom. Although it decided not to recommend such a scheme, it called for progress on the New Zealand and Swedish schemes to be monitored. Several members of the commission found the arguments finely balanced.
The cost of a no-fault scheme is another question. In 1988, the King's Fund and the centre for socio-legal studies, Oxford, estimated that, in addition to continuing costs of the Department of Social Security, the present litigation scheme, based on 10 claims per 100,000 of the population per year, would cost £75 million per year, whereas a no-fault scheme may cost £120 million per year. Set against that are the delay and individual misery that might be saved by the no-fault scheme.
In addition, a far higher proportion of compensation goes to the victim under a no-fault scheme. In New Zealand, 93p of every £1 spent goes to the victims, and only 7p goes to administration. In Britain, the National Consumer Council claims that for every £1 awarded as compensation, 85p is taken up in costs.
In the time available, the issues cannot be dealt with in the detail that would make the case conclusive, but the lengthening list of individuals and inquiries that have considered a no-fault scheme as the right way to tackle the present inadequacy of litigation lends substantial support to the argument. Both the BMA and the Royal College of Physicians support the proposal. Sir Peter Middleton, in his "Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid", suggested that the Government should investigate the alternatives to the current system of compensation, with specific reference to medical negligence.
In 1990, the present Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women, and in 1991 Ms Rosie Barnes, the then Social Democratic party Member for Greenwich, brought Bills before the House to introduce no-fault compensation schemes, but they did not have the support of the Government and so did not progress. I do not believe that any of the criticism made of those Bills was insurmountable. There is nothing from existing schemes abroad or from previous objections to indicate that a no-fault compensation scheme for medical accidents is impractical or exorbitantly expensive.
There is a mountain of evidence that present arrangements for determining compensation for medical accidents are harsh, capricious and unjust. The arguments for a no-fault scheme are powerful, persuasive and supported by those who know the issues at first hand.
I hope that I may have persuaded the Minister that there is a strong case for examining such a scheme in depth, with a view to a no-fault scheme of compensation for medical accidents becoming a new dimension of our modernised welfare service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) brings considerable knowledge of medical research and the NHS to bear on this topic. He is to be congratulated on having used the Adjournment debate to raise the issue of compensation for victims of medical accidents. It is a subject of obvious importance.
There can be few things more distressing for the victim and for friends and family than that someone should seek medical help and be harmed as a result. We well understand, therefore, what has caused my hon. Friend to bring the matter before the House—although I am afraid that I will not be able to satisfy him this evening.
There is a significant difference between harm caused by a negligent act and harm caused by a set of circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen. Much as we may wish to, we cannot give absolute guarantees—no one ever can—of a successful outcome to a medical treatment. No matter how careful we are, in all walks of life accidents can happen from time to time.
Sometimes, the actions or omissions of an individual are responsible for the harm that occurs. At other times, it is simply a set of circumstances that could not have been foreseen, or the result of a foreseeable risk that was nevertheless justified in the circumstances. The person who suffers the harm may have contributed to or caused the accident himself. Medicine is no different in that respect from any other activity.
We no longer live in times—we are glad of it—when it was presumed that the doctor knew best, and when everyone blindly accepted treatment without explanation or consideration of all the options. Generally, before any medical treatment is given today, the patient's consent must be obtained. To be valid, that consent must be freely given, and obtained only after sufficient information has been provided about the proposed treatment—its nature, its consequences, possible alternatives and any substantial risks. In that way, a balanced judgment can be made. If that does not happen, a patient may have the right to take legal action, or grounds for a legitimate complaint.
When an adverse effect is the result of third party misconduct or negligence, it is right that the harmed person should be able to seek some recompense. The underlying principles are clear cut and established under the common law. They apply to personal injury cases in general, not just those arising from health care. We are not persuaded that health care should be singled out for different treatment.
In the case of compensation for medical treatment, it is necessary to prove that a duty of care is owed by the NHS body; and that there has been negligence through an act


or omission; that there has been harm; and that the harm was caused by negligence. NHS bodies may already, in exceptional circumstances and within delegated limits relating to public expenditure, make ex gratia payments on the merits of individual cases. My hon. Friend will know that when clinical negligence is involved and a settlement has been negotiated following legal advice, upper limit is £1 million.
The Government recognise that pursuing a claim for medical negligence can be a lengthy and traumatic process. My experience in practice as a solicitor and barrister taught me how difficult such litigation is for those involved. Several years may elapse before a case finally comes to trial, making investigations more difficult and time-consuming.
Sometimes, NHS bodies seek to defend claims where liability should be admitted early on. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are seeking actively to discourage such practice, because it only prolongs the anguish of patients and clinicians alike, and leads to unnecessary increases in legal expenses. We want the valuable resources of the NHS to be used for patient care, not to line the pockets of lawyers. I have sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend, but we are unable to take the road along which he invites us to travel.
Some argue that as it takes a long time for medical negligence cases to be heard, it is unfair on the litigant, and that a supposedly quicker no-fault scheme is the answer. The Government cannot agree with that. To pay compensation when no fault has been established would, to some extent, belittle the harm caused to others through a negligent act. It would also treat medical accidents in a different way from other personal injuries, and it may often be just as difficult to establish that the medical treatment had caused the injury as to prove that someone had been negligent.
Even under a no-fault liability scheme, causation would still have to be established. That is not always easy, and can be as difficult as establishing negligence. The amount of compensation would still have to be determined, and possibly disputed. Some of the most prolonged and bitter disputes are over the quantum. Legal action and legal fees would not necessarily be avoided, and the process could still be lengthy. The full extent of the injury would still need to be established, taking into account the longer-term prognosis. Within delegated limits, NHS bodies may already award compensation on an ex gratia basis up to a maximum of £50,000 where no fault has been established.
Money for a no-fault compensation scheme—which would not be cheap; we should be under no illusions about that—would have to be found from NHS resources, and would inevitably result in reducing the money available for direct patient care. It also seems to us that the cost of meeting injury claims would be shifted from those who were negligent to the community as a whole, and, by extension, to injured people themselves, because they are part of that community. There is also a risk that a no-fault culture could, over time, diminish clinical accountability, and we could no longer reassure patients that what had happened to them would not subsequently happen to somebody else.
Even under a no-fault scheme, professional bodies and the NHS would still have the responsibility to ensure that standards were maintained. Clinicians will always want to do the best by their patients, and that is just one of a number of considerations that would have to be addressed if such a scheme were ever to come before the House for consideration.
My hon. Friend referred to compensation for those who may have experienced harm while participating in innovative medical procedures. Research ethics committees, which offer independent, objective advice to NHS bodies on the ethics of research proposals to be carried out within the NHS, have an important role. They ensure, among other things, that those who agree to participate in such research—which may involve a risk—are told at the outset not only of the nature of any risk, but of the compensation arrangements that will obtain in the event of the research subject's being harmed.
Mention has been made—and it has been the way for as long as I have studied or practised law—of the existence of no-fault compensation schemes in New Zealand and Sweden. I recall the considerable interest, and indeed controversy, that surrounded the establishment of the scheme in New Zealand. It would, however, be dangerous to make a direct comparison between those two countries and ours. There are many differences between the jurisidictions, and it is important to recognise the way in which no-fault compensation schemes have developed to reflect the broader context of the countries in which they were established.
In Australia and Canada, consideration was given to a no-fault compensation scheme, but, ultimately, the idea was rejected. There are few such schemes in the European Union.
Clinical negligence costs the national health service £200 million a year. That is not good enough, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has expressed our fear that the figure will continue to rise. The best way to ensure that it does not is to raise standards, and that is what we have promised to do. Our proposals for a national institute for clinical negligence and a commission for health improvement will help to raise standards of performance, and reduce the risk of adverse incidents occurring in the first place.
Our White Paper "The New NHS" puts quality organisation, evidence-based practice in day-to-day delivery of NHS services and the infrastructure to support that at the heart of what we seek to achieve. We want clinicians to be involved in quality improvement programmes, disseminating good practice, using high-standard clinical risk reduction programmes, identifying adverse incidents, and learning the lessons that need to be learned from them. All that can contribute to a reduction in the number of costly negligence claims.
I commend the use of mediation, which presents a real alternative to long and costly court cases. A pilot project in two English regions, Anglia and Oxford, and Northern and Yorkshire, is making an important contribution to our body of knowledge. It will establish whether mediation is a viable option for the NHS as a whole. We also look


forward to the Lord Chancellor's work in reforming the civil justice system. All in all, we believe that that package of measures is the best way forward, that it will ensure that the victims of medical negligence and medical accidents are properly compensated, and that the public will receive the reassurance that is their due.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that what is wanted is
explanation, not litigation. Apologies, not accusations. Excellence, not excuses.
In the new NHS, that is just what we seek to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.